Sitting of 13 June 1990

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

    HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Committee on the Hythe, Kent, Marina Bill have leave to visit and inspect the areas affected by the proposed works and their environs, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    South Africa
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends any change to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of sanctions and South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Mr. Douglas Hurd): Our policy is unchanged. We want to see the abolition of apartheid and the peaceful transition to a democratic multiracial system in South Africa. We shall maintain our policy of encouragement and pressure on all sides to enter into negotiations on a new constitution. I welcome the decision of the South African Government to lift the state of emergency, except in Natal.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is widespread recognition in South Africa that sanctions have been one of the key contributory factors to the present and welcome change in the position of the South African Government? Does he further accept that the appropriate response from the Government and European Community would be to retain the present structure of sanctions until the remaining legislation and obstacles to negotiations are finally removed, and to respond, as and when negotiations develop, to the creation of a new constitution by the removal of sanctions during that period? Prompt action would be inappropriate.
    Mr. Hurd: We are not planning to remove all sanctions, but we see the need to give practical proof that we are encouraging President de Klerk in the dramatic steps that he is taking, at great risk to himself and his party, towards a new South Africa without apartheid. I believe that those moves are irreversible.
    Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by the successful talks that are taking place between the business community and the mass democratic movement ill South Africa, including the African National Congress? Does he agree that the need is to maintain pressure on the South African Government for the speediest possible reforms? It is only through political reform and change that we shall lay a sound economic basis for the future of South Africa, as all sides wish.
    Mr. Hurd: The right mix of pressure and encouragement must be achieved. The business community in South Africa is well placed to do that. It has recognised for a long time that an apartheid South Africa is bad for investment and bad for the prosperity of all South Africans.
    Mr. Anderson: The Foreign Secretary said that the Government are not planning to remove all sanctions, yet the Prime Minister said in the House:
    "I believe that there is now no place for sanctions"'.—[Official Report, 22, May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 167.]
    It is not our job to drive a wedge between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, but will he use his considerable skills to reconcile what are, on the face of it, fundamentally different propositions?
    Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister has often defended, at the European summit and in the House, the step-by-step approach that we are practising. We are moving step by step to encourage the South Africans as they move, while maintaining pressure on them. The sanctions issue is becoming yesterday's argument. It is no longer the most effective means of pressure. The pressures that we have exercised have shown themselves to be effective.

    Middle East
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives are currently being considered to help advance the peace process in the middle east.
    Mr. Hurd: My recent visit to the middle east has convinced me more than ever of the urgent need for direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israel. I can see no other starting point for a genuine peace process. We shall continue to work for that with our friends in the region and elsewhere. The grim alternative to dialogue is extremism and more killing.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. If the United States withdraws from dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organisation for not condemning the attack on an Israeli beach, shall we support the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with Iraq and Libya heading towards having a nuclear arsenal and with the Israelis having an extreme Government, we should be encouraging world opinion to bring about peace in that part of the world?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point. We must not forget, as the other problems in Europe and South Africa yield to treatment, that the problem in the middle east is getting worse and more poisonous.
    On my hon. Friend's first point, we have urged the PLO to condemn the attack on the beach in Israel. It is important that the United States should remain fully

    273
    engaged in the peace process, which means maintaining the contacts that have led to the understanding with the PLO about the Baker plan.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Given the gross violations of human rights that occur regularly on the west bank and in Gaza—the most recent of which was the throwing of grenades into a United Nations clinic yesterday—does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is the most appropriate time for the Prime Minister to co-sponsor an Israeli state of the art exhibition at the Barbican centre in October? Does not he think that it would be much more helpful if the Prime Minister made it clear that she regards the failure by the Israeli forces to behave properly on the west bank and in Gaza as a stopping point on any further co-operation between this Governent and Israel?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of State and I have never been slow to condemn the excessive use of force by Israeli security forces in dealing with the intifada. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all friends of the Palestinian cause are prepared to condemn individual terrorist attacks. It is not enough simply to say that they are against terrorism.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Although new settlements on the west bank do not help the peace process, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth while pointing out that Soviet Jews emigrating to Israel are not moving to the west bank in sizeable numbers, contrary to what we sometimes read in the world press?
    Mr. Hurd: There is some dispute about the figures. If east Jerusalem is included among the occupied territories—we certainly include it—the situation is different. We need from the new Government of Israel—I very much welcome the fact that there is a new Government—a clear statement and practical measures to ensure that Soviet Jews do not settle in the occupied territories. We welcome the fact that they are able to leave the Soviet Union.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kaufman.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the attempted terrorist attack in Israel a few days ago? Will he join me also in welcoming the statement made after that attack by the PLO, in which it said that the PLO
    "oppose and denounce any military action that targets civilians"?)
    I am interested in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the formation of a Government in Israel who are totally opposed to any genuine peace process. Will he send a message to the new Israeli Government that the peace process is more vital than ever? Will he make it clear that a policy of settlements in the occupied territories is unacceptable to both sides of the House?
    Mr. Hurd: I have already made the second-to-last point clear in my previous answer. I believe that a Government in Israel is better than no Government. The peace process has been completely stymied for weeks because there has been no Government. I hope that, now that there is a Government, all the friends of Israel can begin to persuade them that they should play a positive part in the peace process.
    While I was in the middle east, I condemned the attack on the Israeli beach. I note what the PLO has already said;
    274
    I just wish that it would go that much further because that would make it much easier for the United States to remain constructively engaged, which I believe is crucial.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this will help hon. Members who are concerned about not being called. I draw their attention to the fact that I am constantly being urged to speed up Question Time, and that is what I am seeking to do. Moreover, I am today giving some precedence to those who were not called during questions on the Prime Minister's statement yesterday.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was called. I call Mr. Snape.

    Short-range Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to discuss the future of short-range nuclear weapons with the United States Secretary of State.
    Mr. Hurd: I met Mr. Baker and other NATO colleagues at the North Atlantic Council meeting held at Turnberry on 7 and 8 June. NATO agreed at that meeting that negotiations on United States and Soviet short-range nuclear weapons systems in Europe should begin shortly after a conventional forces in Europe agreement is concluded.
    We shall continue to keep in close touch with the United States on this subject as we prepare for the NATO summit in London from 4 to 6 July.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the best thing to do with these relics of the cold war would be to return them to the United States of America? If he is not prepared to do that, will he tell the House against whom he anticipates the weapons ever being deployed?
    Mr. Hurd: They are there to deter any aggressor in the future.
    Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) mentioned the problems in the middle east. As so many nasty regimes in that area still possess very nasty weapons, would not it be a mistake for us to throw down our arms at this stage?
    Mr. Hurd: What we agreed at Turnberry—as has been agreed many times before and as will be agreed many times in the future—is that the 16 NATO allies need an appropriate and sensible mix of nuclear and conventional forces at the lowest level consistent with our security needs. That mix of forces, under an integrated command, is designed to deter attack on our area from any quarter.
    Mr. Kaufman: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was that a few days before President Bush announced that there would be no modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons, the Prime Minister was alone in NATO in continuing to advocate the modernisation of such weapons? Will he ask the Prime Minister to stop doing what she was doing yesterday—that is, jabbering on about the NATO flexible response

    275
    strategy, given that the intermediate nuclear forces treaty and the American decision not to modernise short-range weapons mean that that strategy is dead?
    Mr. Hurd: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. He is confusing the follow-on to Lance, which is what President Bush has abandoned—he consulted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Bermuda before making the announcement—and the general position of NATO, which my right hon. Friend continues to emphasise. I do not know what the Labour party's position is, but our position is the one that I have just stated: we need a sensible mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, including weapons below the strategic level, to protect our security.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he intends to have with other Governments in advance of the non-proliferation treaty review conference.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): The United Kingdom is one of the three depositary powers of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and we consult regularly with the other depositary powers and other interested parties.
    Mr. Strang: Following the successful military use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, should not we be even more terrified at the prospect of countries such as Argentina, Iraq and Pakistan—to name only three—developing nuclear weapons? Is not the best contribution that the British Government can make in this matter to hasten progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Only if the nuclear weapons states make progress in that direction can we have the maximum impact against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in third-world countries.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I share the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman expressed in the first part of his question. We were interested in President Mubarak's initiative for the middle east. The extension of the non-proliferation treaty would he the best way of carrying the matter forward, in the middle east and elsewhere. On the partial test ban treaty, the hon. Gentleman will know the Government's position, which was shared by the Labour party when it was in power: as a nuclear state, we must have the right to test our weapons to ensure that they work.
    Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in this country and throughout the democratic world about the prospect of some of the tinpot military dictatorships in the middle east acquiring a nuclear and biological weapons capability allied to a long-range delivery system? Is not it time for us to work closely not only with our European partners and our American allies, but with the Soviet Union, so that those countries are effectively persuaded not to go ahead with those programmes in the year ahead?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend that the only way to avoid what would be a very unstable and inefficient attempt to set up a complex deterrent system in the middle east would be the spread of the nonproliferation treaty. That is the objective of our diplomacy.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Foreign Office accept that the greatest possible nuclear flashpoint has now moved from Europe to the middle east? Amid all the hope and excitement in eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and South Africa, will the Foreign Office make it a priority to secure a settlement in the middle east that will stop that flashpoint becoming a reality?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are perhaps two dangerous flashpoints at the moment—one in Kashmir and the other in the middle east. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already conveyed the sense of urgency that the Government feel about progress in the middle east.

    Drugs Trade
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to assist the international community to strengthen its offensive against the drugs trade.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We are vigorously pursuing action internationally against drugs. We hosted the recent world ministerial drugs summit in London, and are playing a leading role in United Nations and European Community anti-drugs co-operation. We have expanded our overseas drug-related assistance programmes, and have so far signed 15 bilateral agreements or arrangements for tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of trafficking.
    Dr. Twinn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I know his deep concern about the international drugs trade. Can he confirm that we are unlikely to make much progress in tackling that evil trade until we have the fullest possible international co-operation among as many countries as possible.?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the need for international co-operation. One of the very welcome aspects of the world ministerial drugs summit was that 127 countries unanimously agreed on the need for international co-operation to counter drugs trafficking.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister agree that we shall not make progress in fighting that evil trade until we seriously address the problem of crop substitution? The economies of many third-world countries are heavily dependent on the production of marijuana and cocaine. Will the Minister assure the House that the Foreign Office is continuing its support for the sugar protocol?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that alternative development or crop substitution is one of the important ways in which that trade can be countered. That is only one way, but it is something which we recognise as important. Indeed, our support for the United Nations fund for drug abuse control, which plays a leading role in alternative development, is evidence of our support for crop substitution and alternative development. Indeed, we are the fifth largest donor to UNFDAC.

    Political Union
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in formulating the United Kingdom position on political union; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: We are active in all those Community discussions. I set out our views in some detail in the debate in the House on 11 June.
    Mr. Gill: With regard to subsidiarity, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the necessity to protect the best features of our national and local democracy. What assurance can he give the House that that will amount to more than crumbs from the European Commission's table?
    Mr. Hurd: I listened to my hon. Friend's particularly interesting speech on that theme on Monday, and I commend it to the House. The powers of the European Community are not vested in the Community and then, as it were, the Community lets us have some crumbs from the table. It is the other way round. In the treaty of Rome, the treaty of accession and the Single European Act, this country, this Government and this Parliament have given certain clearly defined powers to the Community. Therefore, those powers cannot be increased without the same process and amendment of the treaties.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State recognise the inconsistency of European politicians who speak about political union and who, at the same time, use every opportunity to restrict movement within the European Community? Does he deplore the partitionist policy of the Dublin Government in forbidding their citizens to have day-trip shopping in Northern Ireland? Does he condemn the decision of the Dublin Government yesterday to defy the European Court, which condemned the 48-hour shopping restriction?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. There is an occasional and lamentable gap between the Europe of phrases and the Europe of facts, and it is part of our job in this country to try to bring the Europe of facts into line. I assume that bonfires are burning on the mountains of Mourne today as a result of the European Court's decision against the Republic. I am sure that the Irish Government will pay proper, due regard to the findings.
    Mr. Marlow: No one is quite sure what is meant by European political union. If further powers are to be given to European institutions with regard to the initiation of policy, will my right hon. Friend undertake on behalf of the House that, if there is to be further policy initiation by the European Community, it should be done by elected bodies and not by the civil service or Treasury?
    Mr. Hurd: We now know more clearly what political union does not mean. Thanks to the answers to questions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put at Dublin, it does not mean doing away with our basic national institutions or powers of peace and war. What will happen under that heading is a search for greater effectiveness of the Community's institutions, and part of that is democratic accountability. We believe that there is a stronger role in that process for national Parliaments
    278
    —not just this House—across the Twelve. It is encouraging that that view is held increasingly in other member states as well.
    Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the whole House will be gratified that the Prime Minister has been able to save the monarchy at one fell swoop in her discussions at Dublin. Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last Tuesday, when he advocated a future Europe of two speeds, with Britain at the second and lower speed? On Thursday, the deputy Prime Minister advocated an integrated Europe, with Britain not in an outer circle, in the same way as Austria, and incapable of influencing events that are going on there. Is the Foreign Secretary in the Ridley camp, the Howe camp, or has he a tent of his own?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will achieve even greater performance in his political career if he actually studies the texts that he describes before manufacturing differences that do not exist. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not suggesting that Britain should in some way be in a secondary position. What we are doing is maintaining a central position by active, constructive and, I hope, agile thinking in all the discussions. It is not in our interests that we should be left behind or be negative in the discussions.

    Latin America
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the Latin American countries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have excellent relations with the countries of Latin America, and strongly support the return to democracy in the region.
    Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread unease in Latin America because of our concentration on events in eastern Europe? What reassurance can my hon. Friend give our Anglophile friends in Latin America that that concentration will not lead to a reversal of the growing interest that we are now showing in the region?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to have this opportunity to reaffirm our interest in the region and to assure my hon. Friend that in no way does our interest in important events in eastern Europe detract from the importance that we attach to our relations with Latin America. Indeed, I draw his attention to the fact that several distinguished Latin American leaders, including the Presidents of Mexico and Colombia, and the President-elect of Brazil, have recently visited London.
    Mr. Dalyell: What agile thinking are the Government giving to the speech in the western Amazon of President Collor de Mello who, unlike President Sarney, is in favour of debt-for-nature swaps?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we give a great deal of thought to the assistance that we can give to protect the environment, particularly the tropical and rain forests of Latin America and Brazil. Debt-for-nature swaps is one issue which has been raised and one suggested way of achieving better protection which will certainly receive consideration.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will apply ever more agile thinking, particularly in terms of economic support and ensuring that the European Community is outward looking, to ensuring economic stability, without which political developments cannot be successful?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We certainly attach the greatest importance to economic stability and progress towards greater prosperity in the region because that is an important way of supporting democracy. The European Community is taking an active interest in seeing what it can do to promote trade in the region. Recently it reached an agreement with central American countries to that end.

    Middle East
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest progress towards the release of British hostages held in the middle east.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The recent release of two American hostages is a welcome development. We very much hope that it will be followed by the release of all hostages in Lebanon. Those events show that Iran and Syria can, if they wish, use their influence effectively to bring about the release of hostages. We urge them to persevere. The holding of hostages, whether in Lebanon or elsewhere, is wrong in itself and in no one's interest.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that, besides British hostages, nationals of many countries are held captive in the middle east? Does he agree that incarcerating innocent individuals will not solve the many difficult problems of that region? Will he consider convening a conference in London, under United Nations supervision if necessary, to try to reach common agreement that the tactic of kidnapping individuals for political reasons will be abandoned and that all captives will be released?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. The House, with its natural concern for British citizens, concentrates on them, but many other people are held, and more Lebanese than any other nationality. I am interested in his suggestion. It is already against all international and national laws to hold hostages. I doubt whether such a conference would take us much further forward, but we rule out nothing and try to discuss these matters in every available forum.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in efforts to assist the hostages, the best way of pursuing parliamentary relations and diplomacy with Iran is through a properly constituted parliamentary exchange with the Iranian Majlis which should consider not only the hostages but all aspects of our relations, including hostages?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the suggestions for a parliamentary delegation. That could help. Those who are concerned, including my hon. Friend, are in touch with the Foreign Office about it.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not the taking of hostages a most barbaric action which causes immense strain and torture, first and foremost to the victims, but also to their loved ones who, month after month and year after year, simply
    280
    do not know whether the person is alive or dead and, if alive, under what circumstances? Does the Minister agree that with or without a delegation to Iran or any other action, it is essential that the Government, together with the Opposition in this Parliament, make it clear that there can be no appeasement of those who are responsible for kidnapping? If there were such appeasement, it would undoubtedly be an incentive for further kidnapping.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have spent many hours with the families of the British hostages—both the Waites and the McCarthys. I pay tribute to Mr. McCarthy senior, who is one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. The hon. Gentleman is right that there can be no question of appeasement in any of these matters. But it is vital to see whether genuine misunderstandings can be removed and to improve background relations if we can. None of those who hold hostages, whether Israel, which took Sheikh Obeid last year, the Hezbollah groups or others, advance their cause by so doing.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that agile thinking is needed when considering the problem of hostages? Does he agree that the way to do so is to develop stronger links with Iran and, preferably, eventually to re-establish full diplomatic relations with that country? Only through that process shall we be able to put pressure on those in the Lebanon who hold British hostages and eventually persuade them to release their hostages.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, but we should remember that Iran broke relations with us. We believe that we have some legitimate complaints against Iran, including the problems with Mr. Rushdie and Mr. Cooper and the influence which we know that Iran can now exercise over hostage groups. None of that means that we should not explore the signals that are being sent from Iran. We welcome what Mr. Moussavian said recently in the interview with The Sunday Times. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made it clear that there was no question of the British Government or the British people wishing to insult Islam or any other of the great religions.

    Antarctica
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had expressing concern about non-scientific activities in the British Antarctic territory.
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure that the environment is protected in Antarctica.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We have received representations from many hon. Members and members of the public. We fully support and comply with the relevant obligations under the Antarctic treaty system and the Antarctic minerals convention, which offer the best possible means of protecting the Antarctic environment.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that any commercial exploitation of mineral reserves in Antarctica would cause intolerable environmental damage? Does he agree that the Government's position to date will have the practical effect of allowing industrial diggers to slip in via

    281
    the back door? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that he will support the creation of a world park for Antarctica to give some protection to that last unspoilt corner of the planet?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not studied either the provisions of the minerals convention, the history which led to its being on the table, or the widespread support for it of most of the nations that are parties to the Antarctic treaty. Our objective is to achieve the best possible protection for the Antarctic environment. In the absence of a minerals convention, there is nothing to protect the Antarctic against mineral exploitation and exploration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman wants that protection to be in place as soon as possible.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister accept that we have before us a proposal from the French and Australian Governments for a wilderness reserve and a proposal from the West German Government for a 50-year moratorium? Both are enlightened and workable solutions. Why do not we support them? Is not it time that we were on the side of the goodies just for once?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I repeat my answer to the hon. Gentleman. If he studied the history of the Antarctic treaty system and the protection that it has provided to the Antarctic for 30 years, and if he would realise that it has taken about 10 years to arrive at an agreement on the minerals convention—in the absence of a minerals convention there would be no protection for the Antarctic environment—he would surely welcome that convention coming into force as soon as possible. We can move on from that to a comprehensive further package of environmental protection which we look forward to discussing at the next meeting in Santiago later this year. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that other proposals that have been put on the table by no means command unanimous support and, therefore, cannot be implemented. In the absence of the implementation of such proposals, surely a minerals convention that can command support is worth having.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not have the sort of deadlock that occurred over the problem of fishing for whales when almost all the whales in the southern hemisphere were slaughtered? I fully realise that my hon. Friend will take a compassionate view of this matter because we are the party of environmental protection. This could be the first major environmental issue for the Conservative party. There must be a compromise. Some part of Antarctica must be preserved for nature and for future generations.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that the minerals convention provides the strictest regime of environmental protection anywhere in the world. It is by no means a charter to allow the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources. Indeed, it is not known whether there are substantial mineral resources in Antarctica. The convention provides for exploration to be carried out only with the consensus of the parties to the Antarctic treaty, who would give priority to ensuring that environmental protection was built into any action that might be taken.
    Mr. Summerson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the minerals convention is not supported, the Antarctic treaty
    282
    system may collapse? If that happens, the whole continent of Antarctica will be open to exploitation by other countries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that we all agree—at least I hope we do—that it would be disastrous if the Antarctic treaty system collapsed, especially given its success over the past 30 years in providing protection to the Antarctic, keeping peace in the region and eliminating territorial disputes. The minerals convention would add substantially to the protection of the Antarctic environment. I hope that we shall see its early agreement and then move to a comprehensive package of environmental protection.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why does not the Minister now accept that, as we predicted when we opposed the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, Australia, France, New Zealand and other countries will never sign the minerals convention because it is a prospectors' charter? Therefore, at the very least, at Santiago in November will the Minister support the German compromise for a long-term moratorium on mineral prospecting in Antarctica? If he does not, the United Kingdom will once again be totally isolated and the Prime Minister's "green mantle" will be shown up for the fraud that it is.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I seem to remember that the attitude of the Labour party to that Act was inconsistent. It changed its mind during the Act's passage. The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that 19 countries support the minerals convention. Therefore, it is wrong to talk about isolation and even more in error to refer to the minerals convention—which, as I said, provides the most stringent regime of environmental protection anywhere in the world—as in any way a charter for mineral exploitation.

    Horn of Africa
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in the Horn of Africa.
    Mr. Waldegrave: In both Ethiopia and Somalia fighting has continued between Government and rebel forces with consequent suffering for the civilian population. We have participated actively in efforts to promote negotiations which offer the only prospect of lasting solutions and of tackling the problems of famine, refugees and underdevelopment.
    Mr. Bennett: From the Minister's reply it is clear that he accepts—as, I am sure, does the whole House—that many people in both countries are still suffering from the effects of famine now and that it is likely that that famine will damage children, if they survive, for the rest of their lives. Will he redouble his efforts to bring peace to the area because only by ending the conflict can the problems of famine in the short term and of the long-term development of the area be tackled?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right that the underlying restoration of peace is vital. We welcome the steps that have been taken by Mr. Nyerere and President Carter to get talks going on Ethiopia. There now seems to

    283
    be some hope of them making progress; the Ethiopians have accepted the idea of a United Nations observer and we hope that the Eritreans will respond.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only other country in the African continent that can assist with resources is South Africa, which is already doing what it can? Therefore, when Mr. Mandela visits my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in July [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to put his supplementary question in the way that he thinks proper.
    Mr. Carlisle: When Mr. Mandela visits my right hon. Friend in July, will he impress upon him that his sanctions policy is futile, and out of date and will deny the peoples in the Horn of Africa the assistance that they could get from a prosperous and economically strong South Africa, which is anxious to help them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is true that the most powerful economy of the continent should be governed by a just and proper constitution and that all the people should share in the ownership of the economic assets and in the political system that controls them. It is true also that those who seek to damage that economy for no other reason, as far as I can see, than to support an outdated position on sanctions are not helping the continent.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the Government's position on the seating of Cambodia at the United Nations when the matter comes before the credentials committee later in the current year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: With our EC partners we are reviewing our policy towards Cambodia's representation at the United Nations. In doing so we shall be taking into account the efforts of a range of countries, notably the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to achieve a comprehensive political settlement.
    Mr. Mullin: May I draw the Minister's attention to a report by Mr. Raoul Jennar on the situation in Cambodia in which he states that because of the termination of aid from eastern Europe the Government in Cambodia will not survive for more than six to 18 months, and that the only force capable of filling the vacuum is the Khmer Rouge? Will he give an undertaking that in no circumstances, in September or October when the decision arises in the United Nations, will we vote again for the coalition which contains the Khmer Rouge?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that active negotiations are taking place to achieve a comprehensive political settlement. That is surely the right way to achieve lasting peace and stability in Cambodia. We hope that the negotiations, with the United Nations playing a leading role, will enable us to establish a supreme national council which would occupy the seat for Cambodia at the United Nations. We must not anticipate the outcome of the negotiations, but we cannot want them to fail.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is offensive that the seat at the United Nations for the Cambodian people should be held by people who are at least the henchmen of Pol Pot? Will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that the United Kingdom and the international community stand up to those people, especially at a time when the offensive by the Khmer Rouge forces is getting closer to Phnom Penh?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that we have made clear on numerous occasions our repugnance for the Khmer Rouge regime. We have not supplied assistance to it of any kind at any time. The objective must be to achieve peace and stability in Cambodia through a comprehensive political settlement, and that is the end to which we are working with our partners among the permanent representatives at the United Nations. I hope that we shall succeed in time for a supreme national council to represent Cambodia at the United Nations.

    Europe (Security and Reconstruction)
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has held with other Foreign Ministers of the European Community concerning security and reconstruction in Europe.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): My right hon. Friend has attended meetings with all or some European Community Foreign Ministers in Ireland on 19 to 20 May, in Copenhagen on 5 June and at the NATO meeting at Turnberry on 7 to 8 June.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the climate is now extremely positive and is based on a common recognition of the dual importance of the European Community as the motor for European economic reconstruction and of the Atlantic alliance as the necessary umbrella of security? Within and outside them, does my hon. Friend agree that political co-operation between the European states and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process, bringing in the superpowers on the edge of Europe, is also extremely important?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the different but sometimes overlapping roles of the various bodies. There is a growing consensus among member states that the Community's principal role must continue to be the economic one in which it has already been extremely successful. There is a strong view in NATO that it must remain the underpinning strength of the security system in the west. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the possibilities for expanding and enhancing the role of the CSCE.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Given that the Government have done a deal with the French to locate the new European development bank in London, will the Minister support the application by the London borough of Newham to have that bank located in Stratford, or at least somewhere within the bounds of the people's republic? Will he acknowledge that the people of Newham have suffered so much and for so long under capitalism that we should at least gain some of the minor advantages of having the bank located there?
    Mr. Maude: I am delighted to hear of the London borough of Newham's enthusiasm for this symbol of capitalism. No doubt Mr. Attali, the president of the new bank, will listen carefully to its request; but the location is a matter for the bank to decide, not us, although of course we are giving it every help in its search for premises.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Has my hon. Friend seen reports that yesterday President Gorbachev referred to a union of sovereign states as a possible solution to the problems arising between the Baltic republics—and other republics in the Soviet Union—and the central Soviet Government? Is not that a positive concept? Will the Government do what they can, in consultation with their Community colleagues, to support that idea in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Maude: The matter must be resolved between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Union. It is good news that there are signs of flexibility, and I hope that a dialogue can take place quickly to resolve what is, at the moment, an unhappy position.

    German Unification
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy on German unification.
    Mr. Hurd: We warmly welcome the prospect of German unification. I am working with the Foreign Ministers of the United States, France, the Soviet Union, the two Germanies and others concerned to settle the external aspects of German unification as soon as possible.
    Mr. Welsh: What will be the status of a reunited Germany in relation to the European Community? Will a reunified Germany have to apply for membership of the Common Market, or will it automatically become a member?
    Mr. Hurd: East Germany proposes to join West Germany under article 23 of the Federal German constitution, which provides for such a move, and the European Community is taking account of that. If the hon. Gentleman has at the back of his mind the notion that Scotland could slip quietly out of the United Kingdom and quietly back into the European Community as a new and separate member, that is richly absurd.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In her statement to the House yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that President Gorbachev had discussed with her the possibility of the Federal Republic of Germany's being called on to pay the costs of the repatriation of Soviet troops from the DDR under any withdrawal plan. Was any figure put to the Prime Minister, and was any discussion entered into with the Federal German Government about the matter?
    Mr. Hurd: That is not primarily a matter for us. As far as I know, no figure was put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in that discussion. I would expect there to be contacts and discussions between the Soviet Government and the Federal German Government if that point were to be pursued.

    Middle East
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken recently to help the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Minister agree that there has so far been a wholly inadequate response by Israel to the initiatives taken by the PLO leader in recognising that state and in restraining terrorism? In the absence of pressure from the United States, will he consider a European Community initiative to persuade Israel to pursue the path of peace?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Many times the general consenus in the House has been to urge a positive response from Israel to the steps that were taken in Algiers by the Palestine National Council and the PLO. We hope, although with some foreboding, that the new Government in Israel will make such a response. I do not rule out a role for Europe. Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing the middle east at the next meeting of Foreign Ministers.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the House and in the world there is a great feeling for world Jewry and the problems that they suffered in the great war? But does my right hon. Friend also accept that there is a feeling that the new Government in Israel are set upon a path that may drag us all into another conflict from which nobody could gain? Will he urge the new Government in Israel to accept that the Palestinians have a right to their place in the sun that shines on them all, as does every other people? If they do not adopt such an attitude the Israeli nation—the Jewish people—will lose a great many friends.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I would be a little careful about associating Jewish people with the policies of the state of Israel. We had our arguments with the previous Government of Israel, but there are many Jewish people, inside and outside Israel, on both sides of the argument. However, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that the right of the Palestinian people to a secure home and to self-determination is as absolute as that of the inhabitants of Israel.

    Antarctica
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of France and Australia on the future of Antarctica.
    Mr. Sainsbury: There have been no formal discussions with the French or Australians at governmental level. The French ambassador and Australian high commissioner called on me on 3 May to present their joint proposals for environmental protection in Antarctica, for consideration at the special Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Santiago in November.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Minister agree that many people in Britain and elsewhere are deeply suspicious of

    287
    Governments such as ours who talk green, but who, in their next breath, promote multinational corporations which spill their oil across the seas and spoil wildernesses such as those of north America, Africa and Asia? Does he understand that the world needs an imaginative gesture, and that a continental wildlife park in Antarctica would be the right one?
    Mr. Sainbury: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense. Negotiations on the minerals convention began in 1982 and were concluded in 1988 by consensus of 33 countries, 19 of which—the majority—signed the convention. That convention will give unparalleled protection from mineral prospecting in the Antarctic; without it there would be no legally binding or enforceable protection for the Antarctic environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome its coming into force at an early date.

    Romania
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's reaction to the outcome of the Romanian elections held on 20 May.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The elections were an important step towards democracy. However, much remains to be done if Romania is to develop into a truly free society.
    Mr. Sumberg: All of us welcome the steps that Romania is taking towards democracy, but will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Romanian Government that membership of the democratic family depends on there being truly free elections and a system of justice which ensures that people who are guilty of crimes under the former regime are called to account?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. We shall be watching what constitution the new constituent assembly in Romania—which is effectively what it is—now brings forward. We shall want to look at the gamut of protection of the rights of the individual, and so on.

    Middle East
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet a representative of the Government of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We regularly discuss with the Israelis the urgent need for peace in the middle east. They are well aware of our view that direct negotiation between Israel and representative Palestinians is an essential first step.
    Ms. Short: Does the Minister agree that the formation of that extreme Government in Israel is deeply worrying—it is even supported by a party which calls for the expulsion of the Palestinians from the west bank and Gaza—that we need urgent action, and that the answer is for the United States to pressurise the Israeli Government into negotiations? Through the European Community, we could have a big new high-profile initiative to put pressure on America, which in turn could bring Israel to the negotiating table. Those matters are now very urgent.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I share the hon. Lady's sense of urgency. Let us see what the new Government in Israel propose. Let us hope that they surprise us. Some of their supporters, as the hon. Lady says, were hard line in their previous statements, but let us see what they propose. What is needed is the dialogue to which I referred, and every day that passes makes that dialogue more urgently required.

    Staircase Refurbishment, Foreign Office
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost of refurbishing staircases in the Foreign Office during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Work on refurbishing the two important staircases in this grade I listed building has extended over the past 24 months at a total cost of £361,000.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that The Times stated that that work was costing £30 million which, translated into medieval terms, is vastly more than Michelangelo got for painting the Sistine chapel? If what my hon. Friend says is correct, The Times should be asked to insert a correction, but if The Times is correct, most taxpayers will be appalled at that sort of indulgence by the Foreign Office on a building which hon. Members hardly ever see, much less the taxpayer.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that the figure that I have given is the correct one. A much larger scheme of refurbishment is being undertaken in what are known as the Old Public Offices. It is the first major scheme of refurbishment since they were built some 130 years ago, it is much needed and it will bring many worthwhile benefits.

    BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 29 JUNE
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Mr. John Bowis

    Mr. Tony Banks

    Mr. Gerald Bowden.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    BAN OF IMPORTS (CHILD LABOUR)
    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. Mike Watson, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of imported goods, the manufacture of which has involved child labour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

    Statutory Instruments, &c
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Ordered,
    That the Education (Recognised Awards) (Amendment) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1085) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    289
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    290
    That the farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 S.I., 1990, No. 1126) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Beaches and Coastline (Regulation)
3.32 pm
Mr. John McFall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate and control beaches and coastline; and for other purposes.
I am presenting the Bill today because of my experience
in my constituency, which has extensive beaches and coastline, where during April a voluntary organisation, made up of 500 volunteerss, collected 3,000 plastic bags and burned 20 tonnes of timber. In a month when the European Commission has confirmed that it is beginning legal action against the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Justice because of dozens of polluted beaches which have failed the EC minimum standards, it is salutary to remember that an EC directive on pollution was introduced in 1975—15 long years ago. Despite that intervening period, we now find that 109 beaches in the United Kingdom fail the sewage test, and that other hazards have been highlighted.
The Bill will address the environmental concerns—and who is not an environmentalist now after witnessing the Prime Minister's indecent haste to become green? I remind hon. Members that in 1982, at the height of the Falklands crisis, the Prime Minister said:
"When you've spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment, it is exciting to have a real crisis on your hands."
We have a crisis every day on our hands. One therefore has
to doubt the Prime Minister's political integrity while she demonstrates touching faith in her Secretary of State for the Environment who has been hauled before the European Court of Justice.
My Bill seeks to amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Commencement) (No. 1) Order 1988 in order to tighten up the penalties for dumping at sea. The Marine Conservation Society claims that dumping at sea is the main source of marine litter and that an estimated 500,000 plastic containers are dumped daily from merchant ships alone. It is also estimated that more than 100,000 marine mammals and 2 million sea birds are killed each year, due to eating or becoming entangled in marine debris.
My Bill would also institute more and better testing than the United Kingdom now undertakes under the EC directive. There are no standard virus tests. In the absence of such tests, my Bill would provide for testing for salmonella and the various enteroviruses, since these are the most serious risks to people's health that scientists hve demonstrated. The Government are not testing for these viruses on most beaches. Where tests have been carried out, the Government have not included the results for the percentage of beaches that have passed the test.
My Bill would also introduce, for sewage disposal, secondary biological-chemical treatment for all towns with a population of more than 5,000. According to the "Nature- programme in March 1989, the Prime Minister said:
"No raw sewage is discharged round Britain's coasts."
292
I, like many other hon. Members, could take the Prime Minister to my constituency and show her that that statement is not true.
There are many questions that one has to ask. Why, as we approach the 21st century, are 300 million gallons of sewage—much of it completely untreated—entering the seas around Britain? The debris is sickening to environmentalists. Dr. Mark Woombs, of the Knotts End study centre near Morecambe, where children come to learn about the environment, said in the Observer magazine of a few weeks ago:
"Children come here to learn the difference between biodegradable and non-biodegradable matter. Instead, every time one of them comes back with a small green object which they think is a rare plant species. Unfortunately, I have to tell them what it is—a decomposed turd."
My Bill would make it mandatory for signposts to be placed on all designated beaches detailing whether it had passed or failed the bathing water quality standards in the past year. The Bill would also provide for carrying out a proper national survey of the health effects of bathing in contaminated waters. It would also contain a provision for the allocation of £2·5 billion for a capital investment programme to bring Scotland's water and sewerage standards up to those contained in the EC directive. We are keen to ensure that the Scottish water industry receives equality of treatment with that in England and Wales, which received a Government cash injection of £1·02 billion and was allowed to write off £4·5 billion in the run-up to privatisation. It is important that Scotland should be treated in the same way.
I am aware that expense is always uppermost in the Government's mind, but the criterion should be quality, not cost. If, in their privatisation of British Gas, the Government could spend £350 million on telling the British public all about Sid, they can spend a fraction of that sum on telling people that bathing in contaminated water is no good whatsoever for their health. Just like he Government's statements, the odd green pellets that people pick up on the beach are not what they seem at first sight. That is why the need for the Bill is paramount, and that is why I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John McFall, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. George Foulkes, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Paul Flynn and Mrs. Alice Mahon.

BEACHES AND COASTLINE (REGULATION)
Mr. John McFall accordingly presented a Bill to regulate and control beaches and coastline; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
Orders of the Day
  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 12

  GOVERNOR'S ANNUAL REPORT
  'The Governor of Hong Kong should submit to the Secretary of State an annual report on the discharge by the Governor of his functions under this Act.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 1—Governor's Annual Report—
  'The Governor shall submit an annual report to the Secretary of State on the operation of any scheme made under this Act.'
  Mr. Lloyd: The Government tabled new clause 12 having seen and approved the intention behind the Opposition's new clause 1. In Committee, we had a useful discussion about how Parliament could keep an eye on the way in which the selection procedures flowing from the Bill and the Orders in Council to follow were progressing under the direction and management of the Governor. In Committee, I said that periodical reports from the Governor to the Home Secretary that would be available to Parliament would be useful.
  Both new clauses put that suggestion into legislative form. I hope that Opposition Members will not press their proposal but will support the Government's new clause in preference because it is slightly broader. For instance, new clause 1 would probably not cover registration for wives and spouses. New clause 12 would, by contrast, cover every aspect of the Governor's functions under the legislation. I believe that that extra reach would be welcomed by the House.
  I am grateful to Opposition Members for their initiative in taking me at my word in Committee and tabling new clause 1, thus providing the Government with an incentive to table new clause 12. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling new clause 12. As he said, it is probably an improvement on new clause 1 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. It would be useful for the House to be kept informed as to how any scheme introduced by the Bill operates and for the Governor to report formally, as well as informally and through other channels, on how the situation in Hong Kong is progressing.
  As the Minister said, new clause 12 covers slightly more points than were raised in Committee. It is not just the operation of the points scheme that I want the Governor to consider. It may assist the House if I outline two or three considerations that I believe the Governor should take into account.
  The Bill is about the stability of Hong Kong and how the United Kingdom should best behave and react to the
  294
  changing circumstances there. Individuals and groups of people in Hong Kong are not catered for under the Bill, and we should become more concerned about them as we move towards 1997. The question of spouses will probably be more conveniently dealt with under a later group of amendments, but there are other aspects that the Governor could usefully consider.
  The Minister himself mentioned the operation of the points system. The Committee dealt with it at some length, and it is not my intention to cover that ground again, though other right hon. and hon. Members may want to do so. Suffice it to say that we have some reservations about the operation of the points system. In particular, we believe that it will cater for only a narrow section of the people living in Hong Kong—those who have other choices before them. People who are left behind or who will not qualify under the points system will feel that the Bill does nothing to reassure them.
  I should like the Governor's annual report to include an indication of how the system is working in respect not only of its application but of its effect on the population of Hong Kong as a whole.
  I should be particularly interested to know whether the jobs left vacant by people leaving Hong Kong are filled by others. A newspaper report two weeks ago indicated that about 40 people applied for each vacancy in the Administration. If that is so, we should be aware of it, so that we can keep our eye on the general position in Hong Kong.
  3.45 pm
  There are two or three other categories of people not dealt with in the Bill but upon which we touched in Committee. The first group is those with no effective nationality. You, Mr. Speaker, were not able to select our new clause that dealt with this point, and, although it is not my purpose to raise the matter now by another means, I think that I can legitimately touch on the point in this debate, because we are discussing matters that the Governor should take into account when preparing his report.
  In Committee, we raised the plight of people who will have no effective nationality after 1997. They are mainly of Indian descent. I know that the Confederation of Indian Organisations has been in touch with the Minister, and that in response to that meeting he wrote to the confederation as follows:
  "British nationals have the specific parliamentary assurance given on a number of occasions that if, against all expectation, any solely British national with no claim to Chinese nationality came under severe pressure to leave Hong Kong, the Goverment of the day would be expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. We stand by that assurance."
  For the avoidance of doubt, I gave an assurance on behalf of the Labour party in Committee that in the event of our being the Goverment at the time we would give these people the same consideration, unless their position had been dealt with elsewhere.
  I mention those people because it is all very well to offer them sympathy and assurances, but that may not be of immediate help to them. The Opposition remain concerned that these people, whom the Chinese do not regard as Chinese for obvious reasons, may find

  295
  themselves in a difficult position, especially if there is any upheaval or internal division in Hong Kong at or about the time that it passes to Chinese control.
  Indeed, these people are excluded from holding high office under the terms of the agreement with China. I should he grateful if the Minister would give an assurance that the Governor will report on their plight, because if they are in difficulty Parliament should be aware of that, earlier rather than later, so that we can, if necessary, do something about it.
  I need hardly remind the House that it is now about 20 years since the east African Asian British passport holders were given assurances following upheavals in east Africa, yet many of them are still waiting to come to this country under the terms of the assurances given by successive Governments. Many of them live in Hong Kong, and this loose end in British immigration law is unsatisfactory; people are given assurances and told they will be dealt with under an informal or even a formal system but outwith the mainstream immigration regime, yet they find themselves left in the unsatisfactory state of having only travel documents. That is what British overseas citizenship is: it does not give the right of abode anywhere other than in Hong Kong. If these people find themselves in difficulty in Hong Kong, we have an obligation to them.
  The Government have said that an assurance has been given to these people, but I submit that it is not much of an assurance. The Select Committee that went to Hong Kong last year specifically raised this problem and recommended that the Government deal with it.
  I mentioned two other categories with whom the Governor should deal. First, the House should be kept informed of the way in which section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 works. As the Committee heard, 180,000 people are in Crown service in Hong Kong. There have been 540 applications for citizenship under this section of the Act, of which only nine have been granted because only nine qualified under the terms of that subsection.
  The Minister gave an assurance in Committee that section 4(5) would work alongside this measure, and I think that the Governor should report each year on the operation of the subsection and on whether any amendments to it need to be made. This is especially important, since Crown servants are to be relied on to keep Hong Kong going and sometimes put themselves in difficult positions because of that, so we should not turn our backs on them.
  Finally, the Governor must deal with the issue of children. In Committee we did not manage to persuade the Government that children who are wholly dependent on parents but who are not minors should in some circumstances be granted citizenship so that they will not be left behind. I have in mind, for example, a family with three children, two aged 14 and 12 and one perhaps aged 19. If the 19-year-old were dependent on his or her mother or father—perhaps he was handicapped, or just living in the family unit, as children do in all parts of the world—it would be manifestly unfair if that family had to come to this country and leave one child behind. If the object of the Bill is to provide assurances and to anchor people in Hong Kong, it seems an odd way of anchoring people if one child must be left behind.
  I said that family unity and the way in which minor children are referred to in the immigration rules and regulations needs consideration, because the United
  296
  Kingdom is no longer in harmony even with EC regulations, where the age is 21 and not 18. That must be considered specifically with Hong Kong in mind, although clearly it might have other repercussions.
  We are told that Hong Kong is a special case, and I accept that, but the Bill remains deficient in many respects. Many people living in Hong Kong have a need to be looked after rather than a pure economic need, or are in a position where it would be economically more advantageous to keep them in Hong Kong. I am concerned that I am continuing to hear reports that many of the people who will qualify under the Bill will also qualify to go to Canada, Australia and other countries. We are forgetting, or leaving behind, those who may find themselves in difficulty as we approach 1997.
  Lest there be any misunderstanding, I reiterate that it remains the hope and wish of every hon. Member that conditions in China and Hong Kong will continue to improve, that the problems of 12 months ago will not recur and that the same transformation will take place on that side of the world as has taken place in Europe, particularly eastern Europe, over the past few years. We must guard against the possibility of things not going as we wish.
  If new clause 1 is not accepted, I hope that the Governor will deal with those points, in recognition of the fact that there are genuine concerns among those who care not only about Hong Kong but about how the scheme will work, particularly in relation to those people whom it will not directly affect.
  Mr. John Butcher: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The House hopes that circumstances will change and will evolve on mainland China, rendering the fallback positions enshrined in the Bill either irrelevant or unnecessary.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to the new clause, which deals with the functions and duties of the Governor. It is an improvement to a certain extent, because it at least improves the channels of accountability to the House. None the less, I have grave misgivings about its workings and the criteria that the Governor will be asked to bear in mind. It is difficult to set yardsticks by which we measure our definition of the great and good residents of Hong Kong. Many hon. Members find that exercise morally excruciating and difficult to reach a firm view about, because we are being asked to do something that has proved virtually impossible in previous immigration laws and Acts of citizenship, not only in Britain but in other parts of the world.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does not it also introduce a wholly new idea and basis for immigration? It does not say that people may come to Britain because of their attachment to it, their desire to serve it or to throw in their lot with its people; it allows them to come here precisely because they are, or may be, useful to Hong Kong.
  Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but there is a piece of hard data that goes a long way towards answering his question. We see from the criteria that 50 points out of a total of 800 are to be awarded for "British links". Presumably that is the measurement by the Government and the Governor of the strength of loyalty that these citizens may have to the United Kingdom. I

  297
  should have thought that, with a measure of 50 points out of 800, we can already see the pitfalls that lie in wait for anyone who tries to establish measures by which these people will be seen as worthy citizens of the United Kingdom should things go wrong in the colony.
  The concept of loyalty is an equally difficult concept to enshrine in these criteria and one that I have never seen in any legislation. I am talking about the broader loyalties of a Foreign Secretary in conjunction with the Governor to those who may be under threat in the colony of Hong Kong if things go wrong and about a couple of loyalties which will not enter into the Governor's consciousness but which Conservative Members must maintain—loyalty to our party's manifesto and supporters, and loyalty to the nation. As our party has said many times, we want good community and intra-community relationships to exist and the surety that there will be an end to primary immigration.
  We in this country have a moral obligation to those who will be under threat if the mainland Chinese do not honour the traditions and liberties of Hong Kong residents. Amendment No. 42, which may be discussed later in greater detail, expresses a genuine intention to define those people who may be at risk. It refers to people being

  "(a) in the opinion of the Governor, likely to be in danger of reprisals for services rendered to the Crown before 30th June 1997,

  (b) liable to become stateless after the transfer of sovereinty over Hong Kong on 30th June 1997."

  Estimates have been made of the number of people in the so-called "sensitive" categories, including one estimate of 6,300 people. I do not know of any of my hon. Friends who do not recognise the Government's moral responsi-bility to those people. We may be talking about people who have served in the intelligence service or have been members of certain branches of the police force; but what about the people from more mundane professions who may be in a sensitive position if the mainland Chinese so deem it?
  Is a schoolteacher any less of a good citizen or any less loyal to his fellow citizens in Hong Kong or to his links with the United Kingdom than a wealthy employment and wealth creator in Hong Kong? Who is more worthy? How many times have we had debates in the House about the relative merits of certain categories in society? Do we not talk many times about the extent to which we could not create wealth in this country and the extent to which there would not be rich entrepreneurs and job providers if there were no decent trainers and educators to provide the human feedstock and the skills required to generate a dynamic economy?
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend wisely, caringly and sympathetically outlined the relative problem that schoolteachers may face. Perhaps I may illustrate his point. Schoolteachers in Hong Kong probably now teach versions and elements of British history. We have a changing regime in China; it is to be hoped that it will become more benign, but it may remain much as it is at the moment. If that happens, the teaching of British history in schools in Hong Kong may be regarded by the Chinese authorities as subversive. Although a teacher who has been teaching history under the existing regime may not be as wealthy or potentially as
  298
  useful in the United Kingdom as some other citizens, he or she may be at a greater risk than them after 1997 if the Chinese Government develops as we hope they will not but as they could in adverse circumstances.
  4 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) answers that intervention, I should point out that it seems to go very wide of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must not raise points that may have been raised on Second Reading or allude, as he did a moment ago, to amendments that are to be called later.
  Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I should reassure you and my hon. Friends that I have undertaken not to detain the House for more than 10 minutes, so it would not be in my interests to stray too far from the new clause.
  Having noted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I return to the criteria. A major problem lies at the heart of those criteria, which create a set of excruciatingly difficult dilemmas for the Governor, no matter how often he reports to the House through the Foreign Secretary. He is being asked to create lifeboats for key people in Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is a vessel full of people. What signal will the Governor be giving to the generality of the people of Hong Kong if he says, "Lifeboats are available only for 50,000 citizens"? How is that supposed to improve the morale of the ship's complement? That is the Governor's difficulty, and that is why I shall have grave difficulty in supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  The criteria are muddled. They illustrate the central moral dilemma that we have unnecessarily imposed upon ourselves, having already constructed criteria in the British Nationality Act 1981. If the proposals remain unchanged, in two or three years' time my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have to live with some of the idiocies that the criteria entail, and although the controversy about the Bill may not be great this afternoon, the Bill will provide a framework in which we may face immense problems in three or four years' time. At that point, it will be too late for the House to reconsider its moral responsibilities, its loyalties or the practicalities of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is genuine in his intentions, and I hope that, even at this late stage, he will consider the dilemma with which he will be confronting his successors as we move towards 1997.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: As long as it remains the responsibility of the Government to look after all the people of Hong Kong, it will be possible for Britain to take a decision about their future that may benefit them, without regard to the present provisions. It will be possible for the Government to reverse their decision and for legislative provision to be made to back up any change of course that may be necessary between now and 1997.
  We must address ourselves to the limited scope of the scheme and to its adequacy and consider whether the Governor's annual report on his functions, as provided in the new clause, would make a significant contribution. In

  299
  my view, it is an acceptable new clause, but it does not go very far because it confines the Governor to reporting on his functions under the Bill.
  The Governor's functions, according to the Bill, are no doubt capable of causing great trouble in respect of all those people who will be disappointed by the fact that they are excluded from the scheme for which the Governor and the Government will be responsible. None the less, those people are concerned about their future. If the Governor's report is intended simply to record how the scheme has operated, it will not tell us a great deal about Hong Kong or its political needs. It will certainly not greatly serve to underpin the Governor's difficult position in that country.
  The new clause does not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the difficult position of people who may well prove to be stateless following 1997. Those people may not enjoy the security of a right of abode in this country or the right to a proper passport entitling them to a right of abode anywhere or a right to be recognised as citizens of the People's Republic of China. They are not specifically provided for in the Bill. The Governor will have no duty to report on that predicament.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has referred to stateless people in Hong Kong. Will he be kind enough to give us his impression of how many such people there are in Hong Kong, how they got to Hong Kong in the first place, and to what extent, given the different categories of people who are stateless in Hong Kong, the British Government and the British people have any responsibility for them?
  Mr. Maclennan: Many are recent immigrants and some arrived in Hong Kong a long time ago. Many have come from the Indian sub-continent and there are many thousands of them. Representations have been made to many Members of this House about their predicament. They are not catered for specifically and the Government have not made any provision that will reassure them. That is a serious matter, and it is shown by the fact that the People's Republic of China, in its treaty arrangement with this Government, has not undertaken to recognise those people even as citizens of the People's Republic. The anxieties of that section of the community, for whom we have responsibility, are real and legitimate.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is implying that some of the stateless persons in Hong Kong are possibly illegal immigrants. If that is the case, to what extent do we have responsibility for them?
  Mr. Maclennan: If I had felt that that was the case, I would not have implied it; I would have said it. Those people are in Hong Kong and they are legally resident there. However, they do not enjoy a proper prospect of citizenship following 1997. It is frankly deplorable that a British Government, at the end of empire, should walk out on those people. I am addressing the matter in the context of the requirement of a report from the Governor about his functions. I stress that that report will be narrow and will not enable us to consider what else should and must be done.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must be aware that we are not debating a fallback position. The provision will come into operation immediately. It does not depend on a change of
  300
  circumstances in Peking or anywhere else. It is being brought forward now to deal with the present concern of the people of Hong Kong that Hong Kong's economy will be disrupted and the prospects of prosperity undermined if there is an exodus of people in sensitive positions in industry and commerce. Those people want the scheme on which the Government will be required to report to be drawn up quickly. They do not want to wait to see what is coming down the pike or to see whether the Peking Government become like Governments in eastern Europe. They want an assurance now. That is what the Governor will be reporting on.
  This proposal is not a great concession. It is a narrow point. Although it is not something that I would dream of opposing, we must regard it for what it is—a pretty thin concession.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I welcome the new clause. Without any offence to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have no fear about the effect of any of the measures in the Bill on British immigration policy. That is no part of my argument, and even though I have had representations from my constituents, I hope that I can take as honourable a view as I took at the time of the issue of the Ugandan Asians.
  We are dealing with the annual report of the Governor and the way in which he will discharge his functions when the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, we must recognise that the Bill is a response by her Majesty's Government to events in Peking last year as they were perceived in Hong Kong to be likely to affect the welfare of the territory in future. People in Hong Kong would have been less than human had they not been undoubtedly alarmed and concerned about what was going on in the north and the likely implications for their life style in future.
  Although my hon. Friend the Minister is a Home Office Minister, I hope that he will accept that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot be totally divorced from either the contents of this legislation or the Governor's report. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that relations between Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China—and, equally important, relations between her Majesty's Government and the People's Republic of China—are an essential fact of life and must be an essential component of the Governor's report to the House, as proposed in the new clause.
  The report and the legislation flow directly from the 1984 joint agreement. That is the basis of legislation determining the relations of the future status of Hong Kong. Under that agreement, the British and Chinese Governments are committed to maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. My concern about the legislation has always been that, rather than maintaining stability, it may do just the reverse.
  There will undoubtedly be further changes in China between now and 1997. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) will allow me to make two points that he has made succinctly and forcefully many times, and which are of fundamental importance to the way in which we look to the future of Hong Kong.
  First, there never has been any form of democratic regime in China. There probably in our lifetimes—
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Nor in Hong Kong, for that matter.
  Mr. Adley: I shall refer to that point in a moment.
  There has never been any form of democratic regime in China, and the welfare, stability and prosperity of Hong Kong have never depended upon there being any form of democratic regime in China. However bestial one may perceive Chinese Governments to have been from time to time—it is quite arguable whether the present Government are more or less bestial than their predecessors—it is a fact of life that has always governed relations between Britain and China and between Hong Kong and China.
  Secondly, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has said from a sedentary position, there has never been any form of democracy in Hong Kong. Many of the unelected people—sometimes rudely known as "fat cats"—who purport to speak for the 5 million or 6 million people of Hong Kong probably have rather less knowledge of how the hawker in the back streets of Hong Kong thinks or what his concerns are than we may sometimes be led to believe.
  On the Governor's report, we must recognise that the commitment of both Governments to prosperity and stability relate not only to how we and the people of Hong Kong regard the influence of this agreement on their lives, but how the people of China—the Government of China, in particular—regard the effect of this legislation on their commitment to the maintainance of prosperity and stability.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will agree that some people who recognise the essential truth may have doubts about the following proposition. My right hon. Friend would agree that the welfare of the people of Hong Kong has always been best served when there have been good relations between the British and Chinese Governments. There has never been advantage to the welfare of the people of Hong Kong when Britain and China have been at loggerheads.
  If one accepts that proposition, I am bound to say that the fact that the Bill was produced without any consultation between the British and Chinese Governments, or without the Chinese Government even being informed of Her Majesty's Government's intention to introduce the legislation, is not the best way to ensure the maintenance of good and stable relations between the two countries on which, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, the welfare of the people of Hong Kong depends.
  I am worried that the issuance of passports under the Bill will deprive many Hong Kong citizens of their rights as Chinese citizens. I hope that I am not out of order if, in the light of the wording of the new clause, I remind the House of certain aspects of the two memoranda relating to passports and status which were attached to the 1984 agreement. I have the impression that not every hon. Member is entirely familiar with them.
  4.15 pm
  The first was submitted by the British Government and includes the following proposition:
  "All persons who on 30 June 1997 are, by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong, British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) under the law in force in the United Kingdom will cease to be BDTCs with effect from 1 July 1997, but will be eligible to retain an appropriate status which, without conferring the right of abode in the United Kingdom, will entitle them to continue to use passports issued by the Government of the United Kingdom."
  302
  The Chinese Government's brief response includes the following:
  "Under the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, all Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether they are holders of the 'British Dependent Territories Citizens' Passport' or not, are Chinese nationals.
  Taking account of the historical background of Hong Kong and its realities, the competent authorities of the Government of the People's Republic of China will, with effect from 1 July 1997, permit Chinese nationals in Hong Kong who were previously called 'British Dependent Territories Citizens' to use travel documents issued by the Government of the United Kingdom for the purpose of travelling to other states and regions."
  As both the British and Chinese Governments signed and accepted those memoranda, it is inconceivable that a British or Chinese Government could have introduced this legislation without recognising that they influence at least the spirit and, quite possibly, even the letter of the 1984 agreement. What has always worried me about the legislation and the way in which it has been handled is that, in the eyes of the Chinese Government, the British Government appear deliberately to have abused both the spirit and the letter of the 1984 agreement. That does not serve the people of Hong Kong well.
  Mr. Marlow: The Government have said that their objective in the Bill is to keep people, particularly influential and important people, in Hong Kong. Many people who oppose the Bill fear that it will have the opposite effect. So far, the Chinese authorities have made straightforward statements, but if they make it clear that if any Hong Kong Chinese who accepts British citizenship under the provisions of the Bill will not be allowed to stay in Hong Kong or China after 1997, it will drive people out of Hong Kong.
  Is it appropriate or right to allow a Governor in his report to react to circumstances in China which would lead him to believe that the provisions already in the Bill would cause people to leave Hong Kong, having the completely contrary effect to the Government's intention? Should he include that in his report and, if so, should Parliament be able to do something about it?
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. It is likely that the Chinese Government would deduce that people who take up their right to passports are, in effect, giving up their right to Chinese nationality, and therefore face the choice of either remaining in Hong Kong stateless or coming to the United Kingdom. Nobody is likely to want to take the chance of remaining in a country stateless. There is a real risk that the Bill will encourage people to leave Hong Kong.
  My anxieties have nothing to do with my views on British immigration policy. I am worried about the effect of such an event on Hong Kong. There have always been many people leaving Hong Kong regularly for elsewhere in the world.
  Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Adley: I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) first, and then I shall give way.
  There has always been a regular outflow of people. Clearly, it is bound to fluctuate from time to time, but inevitably the constitutional changes that will take place in 1997 will create a great deal of uncertainty. In his annual report the Governor should address the likelihood that,

  303
  when the Bill becomes an Act, instead of a regular flow of people from Hong Kong, there will be a risk of creating a flood. I d o not use that word to be abusive or to imply that there will be a flood of people to Britain. However, there could be a flood or haemorrhage of people from Hong Kong all at one go.
  If one is trying to maintain the stability of a territory, in what worse way could one go about it than introducing legislation that risks creating a sudden haemorrhage of large numbers of people at one time?
  Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing that the Chinese Government want—my hon. Friend is far closer to the Chinese Government than I could ever be—is to get rid of the people who are making the enterprise culture in Hong Kong work? It is pretty obvious to me that the Chinese Government are looking forward to a wonderful community that will produce vast amounts of money. I do not accept the argument that the more British passports we issue, the more people will be frightened away by a Chinese Government—quite the reverse. The Chinese Government will know that we have hand-picked those people as part of the enterprise culture, and they will do everything in their power to retain them. After all, if Hong Kong is not a thriving port, it is nothing but a little barren rock.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is probably closer to the authorities in Taiwan than I am ever likely to be, but that need not preclude our agreeing from time to time on certain matters.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Adley: In a moment. My hon. Friend must let me answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) first, because it is important.
  With respect to some of the Ministers, not at the Home Office but at the Foreign Office, one of the problems is that they were not around when the joint agreement of 1984 was being negotiated, let alone the months and years leading up to it when everyone knew that negotiations had to take place and all sorts of silly phrases such as "leaseback" were in the air. My hon. Friend will remember it. It is probably not too indiscreet of me to say now that I wrote my book called "All change, Hong Kong" in 1983 and had copies scrutinised verbatim by both the Foreign Office and the Chinese Government. Things needed to be said at that time which neither Government felt able to say, and I was the fall guy who said them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Test is right: the spirit of the 1984 agreement is that, basically, Chinese pride was deeply wounded by our acquisition of Hong Kong, and the ambition of successive Chinese Governments, many of whom were far more vitriolic about Hong Kong than the Communist Government have been since 1949, was the return of sovereignty. As my hon. Friend said, they wanted sovereignty to be returned but Hong Kong to be left as it was.
  The Chinese are not altruistic. That is the last thing that one could accuse them of being. They are self-interested, and they want to retain the wealth and the benefits that they receive from Hong Kong. Their desire and that of the British Government to maintain stability is enshrined in the wealth and benefits that come from Hong Kong. Of course, my hon. Friend is right: the last thing that the Chinese wanted to do, or want to do now, is to drive away
  304
  from Hong Kong the very people on whom its prosperity depends. My hon. Friend is perhaps implying that, by this legislation, we are likely to further the departure of people from Hong Kong rather than to still it. I believe that that is the point that my hon. Friend made, and it could well be true.
  Mr. Budgen: I wish to take up with my hon. Friend a relevant point. Has not a feature of Hong Kong life since 1984 been the way in which a considerable number of people, without offence to the Chinese authorities, acquired alternative rights of abode in the traditional immigration reception countries of the United States of America, Canada and Australia? Is it not important that the Governor's annual report tells Parliament what is happening about that trend? Many of us fear that, instead of acquiring rights of abode in those countries which have traditionally always welcomed immigrants, people will turn their attention to emigrating to Britain.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend has a point. Given the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Test, I suppose that I should have declared my interest as the chairman of the British-Chinese parliamentary group. As a member of the Select Committee on Members' interests, I am not sure whether I should have done that earlier. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will not give me too hard a time as I continue my speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen) has made a valid point. Recently in Hong Kong, discussing among other matters the one that he has just raised, I discovered that the lowest going price for a passport was $HK50,000 for a passport for the Dominican Republic. Perhaps, in the report that the Governor produces to Parliament, he should also produce an annual chart of the going rate for a passport for any given country. There is nothing particularly new about that.
  One aspect to which my hon. Friend did not allude but which certainly concerns me—perhaps the Governor could turn his mind to it—is whether, under the Bill, we shall create a market for jobs with British passports. There is a market in just about everything else in Hong Kong, and I cannot see any reason why jobs that carry the likely right to a passport, under the Bill, will not have a price. Personally, I have never discovered anything in Hong Kong that does not have a price.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Chinese authorities would ever know the identities of those who could not manage to secure a right of abode in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Adley: I had not considered that, but it is an interesting question. I do not know, but I suppose that one would have to look into the procedures. The hon. Gentleman should address to the Minister the question whether all the applications will be handled in total secrecy and how that secrecy is to be maintained. The retention of such secrets in a place like Hong Kong may not be easy—
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Adley: I am more than happy to give way to my hon. Friend if other hon. Members do not think that I am taking up too much time.
  Mr. Marlow: I believe that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was looking at and referring to me when he made his intervention. Whether or not the Chinese authorities come to know about those who will have the right of abode under the provisions of the Bill—and they probably will—what is more important than that—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is an assumption that the hon. Gentleman cannot make.
  Mr. Marlow: Well, what is more important than that is that those people who do receive the right of abode will go through their lives with the assumption that the Chinese authorities will get to know that information?
  Mr. Adley: That is a somewhat esoteric point, which I had not been going to cover and on which I have no information, because there can be no information. That is an additional concern, but I am anxious—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to assure us on that point, because it is exceedingly important that we know? The Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench and he should know.
  Mr. Adley: I am not joining an attempt to filibuster the Bill. I do not like the Bill—[interruption] I do not wish to be unkind. The House voted to give the Bill its Second Reading and I gather that the mood of the House is to allow the Bill to pass, but I am anxious to put on record some of my thoughts and worries, which should concern other hon. Members, which, I am sure, bother Sir David Wilson and which I hope he will be minded to include in his report.
  The last two or three points that have been made have related to the sort of place that Hong Kong is. It is a mercurial place, with one of the most irresponsible presses in the free world, for which sensation and rumour are the order of the day.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is not in his place. When he was last in Hong Kong, having read the South China Morning Post and other newspapers and believed what was in them, he thereupon made a statement about how many passports the French and West German and other Governments would offer the citizens of Hong Kong. I must advise him that it must be quite some time since any Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can have achieved such a swift response from friendly Governments, remonstrating at what a British Minister had said. Even the Canadian Government were constrained to object to the British Government about what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had said.
  Therefore, I hope that care will now be taken by Ministers and that they will recognise that, although we do not have to like or admire the Chinese, we must recognise the facts of life and that they are there and will assume sovereignty. Their good will and their interpretation of this legislation are of vital importance to the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, the British Government and the Chinese Government must stay in contact. They must talk to each other and keep each other informed of their thinking.
  I have expressed in answer to an intervention my fear that the Bill will create a haemorrhage of people from Hong Kong, the very haemorrhage that the Bill is supposed to stem. I hope that I am wrong. In my view, those in Hong Kong who have clamoured for the Bill have
  306
  taken a major step, some wittingly and some unwittingly, to undermine relations between Britain and China over the 1984 agreement. If I may say so, they do not and have not served well those for whom they purport to speak and by whom they have never been elected.
  I am extremely concerned about the Bill. I hope that everything that I have said turns out to be entirely wrong. I believe that, in itself, it is an undermining of the 1984 joint agreement, upon which Hong Kong's future undoubtedly ultimately depends.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: First, I welcome the new clause. A number of hon. Members, including myself, urged on Second Reading that an annual report should be presented. I am grateful to the Home Office and to the Government generally for tabling and introducing the new clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about its limited purpose and narrow intentions. Nevertheless, it provides an important peg and an opportunity for the House in the years to come, especially between now and 1997, to monitor political events and developments in Hong Kong.
  I wish to dwell for a short while on the mechanics of the presentation of the report and the opportunities for the House to perform a monitoring role. The report will be presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We have had an annual debate on Hong Kong over recent years and I assume that the report will be an important part of the papers available to us when we debate Hong Kong in the future.
  If the annual report is to be presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it seems that that will not provide the full parliamentary scrutiny that I would like. I suggest that the Government and all the parties represented in the House consider the possibility of setting up a joint committee of the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Foreign Affairs, which would be charged with the responsibility for monitoring political, social and economic events in Hong Kong. That would enable the Select Committee machinery to produce reports for the information of the House, and would provide the important information that Members will require when they come annually to debate the report that will be presented by the Governor and other matters relating to the affairs of Hong Kong.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs will be able to make inquiries about the annual report, but I am concerned that there appears to be no machinery to enable either the Foreign Secretary or the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to have a locus. The House must do everything in its power to build confidence and try to reinforce confidence in the minds of the people of Hong Kong, who remain extremely anxious about their position during the years before 1997, by creating new extra-governmental institutions that will provide powers and opportunities to hon. Members to express concerns and anxieties as we proceed to 1997. If my suggestions were adopted, we would have a regular and sustained opportunity to ring the alarm bells if hon. Members or Select Committees were alarmed about anything.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has great knowledge and experience of Asia, especially China and Hong Kong, and I bow to that experience. I listened

  307
  intently to what he said, and agreed with much of it. However, I must emphasise what has not been emphasised in earlier debates, and certainly not today: the haemorrhage is already here. Every week 1,000 people are leaving Hong Kong, and recent events have done nothing to strengthen their confidence about their well-being and safety, and that of their families, up to and after 1997.
  Mr. Adley: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman last checked the figures, but I did so six or eight weeks ago. In the 10 months after the events of June last year, there was a marginal decrease in the number of people leaving Hong Kong. I hear what he says, but if he checks the facts and figures he may find that the alarming totals of which he has spoken are not borne out in reality.
  Mr. Madden: I was in Hong Kong in April, when we were given that figure of 1,000 people a week. I have just consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—who was in Hong Kong a fortnight ago—and he has confirmed that that figure is about right. We must not quibble about 100 either way; we should agree that substantial emigration from Hong Kong is now taking place. The Bill is an attempt to stem that haemorrhage now and in the foreseeable future. It does not serve us well to dwell on the minutiae of the spirit of past agreements between China and Britain when we are dealing with events after 1997.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: To some extent it is not real emigration. Many people are simply trying to establish a right of abode in other countries. Having established that right, they often return to Hong Kong to carry on their business activities. There is a name for those people in Hong Kong—astronauts. In the main, they go to Canada to establish a right of abode—while safeguarding their short-term private interests—and then return to pursue their commercial activities. Their loyalties often remain to the colony, where they want to stay in the long term.
  Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is right. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Christchurch and others that, even if passports giving the right of abode are issued under the legislation—I understand the matter is being dealt with urgently—the first passports are to be issued later this year; there is no guarantee, and there should be no fear in the minds of hon. Members, that all 50,000 plus their dependants will seek to come to the United Kingdom. In my opinion, and in that of many other people whom I have consulted, not all those entitled to right of abode would wish to exercise that right. They would go to Canada, America, Australia and elsewhere, where they would be admitted.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman said that there was great urgency over the issue of the passports. What is the great urgency?
  Mr. Madden: The great urgency stems from the men and women in Hong Kong who still have vivid memories about what happened in mainland China last year and vivid recollections of what has been happening in China during the past 12 months, and they marked that in their tens of thousands in Hong Kong a few days ago. Their anxieties are about whether they will be able to live in peace and security in Hong Kong after 1997 when the sovereignty of Hong Kong is handed to China.
  308
  To pick up the point made by my my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, many of the people who are now seeking to leave Hong Kong are going abroad to obtain the right of settlement and of abode. The only way in which they can qualify for that is to leave Hong Kong to settle temporarily in one of a number of countries to obtain nationality and a right of abode which they will wish to exercise only if life in Hong Kong becomes intolerable after 1997.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may be using the word "urgency" in an odd sense. He means that the people of Hong Kong are extremely anxious, not that the problem is urgent. As he rightly says, the problem will not arise until 1997, and in the meantime the people of Hong Kong have found another method of dealing with it—establishing a right of abode in other countries. Therefore, the problems cannot be urgent in the sense that some great disaster will befall those people if passports are not issued this year, next year or the year after. In fact, they do not need them until 1997.
  Mr. Madden: The right hon. Gentleman is either being particularly obtuse or is seeking to continue his campaign which fizzled out on the night of the Second Reading debate when the votes were counted.
  The urgency is to get under way the scheme that is enshrined in the Bill and to make the passports available to stop the haemorrhage that is now under way. That is why I say that the matter is urgent. That is the view that I expressed on Second Reading to explain my unwillingness to oppose the Bill even though I recognise its fundamental defects. I abstained on Second Reading and I shall be supporting various amendments tonight, but I will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Madden: If I am to fulfil my promise not to detain the House for any length of time I must conclude by welcoming the new clause. I hope that it will be carried. If the Minister intends to reply to the debate, I hope that he will at least say that he is willing to consider my suggestions about the procedures of the House strengthening and reinforcing the confidence that lies at the heart of the Bill and in the minds of the men and women of Hong Kong and perhaps to have further discussion about how they may be fulfilled.
  Mr. Tebbit: Before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, came to the Chair, Mr. Speaker was being extraordinarily kind in allowing the debate to run quite wide, I think on the basis that almost anything that might be raised at this stage might go into the Governor's report if such a report were to be made. However, I do not want to take undue advantage of that and at this stage I have only two points to make about the new clause.
  I preface my remarks by saying that since the House gave the Bill its Second Reading on the night when 80 members of the governing party either voted against the Bill or deliberately refused to support it, events have moved on a little, particularly in one respect. During that debate—I do not know to what extent it influenced any of my right hon. and hon. Friends—we were told by Ministers that the Chinese Government were not upset by

  309
  the measure and were quite content. The very next day a spokesman for the Chinese Government made it plain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said, that the Chinese Government are bitterly opposed to it and regard it as a breach of the accord which was reached between the two Governments, and so it clearly is.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd indicated dissent.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Tebbit: It is no good my hon. Friend shaking his head. The Chinese Government, who are at least as likely to have it right as this Government, regard the measure as a breach of the accord. There is no doubt in my mind that that is so. Certainly it was completely wrong for Ministers to tell the House that the Chinese Government did not regard it as a breach. After all, the only people who can say whether the Chinese Government do or do not regard it as a breach are the Chinese Government themselves, and they made their position plain.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Minister shakes his head. I think that I can confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that the Chinese Government consider the measure to be a breach of the agreement, in the spirit and possibly in the letter, and that was why I read out in detail the two memoranda.
  Will my right hon Friend comment on a point on which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) would not give way? There is one point that we should put on the record, and it should also be part of the Governor's report, because he is responsible, as her Majesty's Government's representative in Hong Kong, for maintaining that stability.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the thousands of people in Hong Kong who were demonstrating. That is their right. But under the 1984 agreement there is a vital clause of desperate importance to the people of Hong Kong, and that is that, between 1990 and 1997, the Chinese Government will not interfere in the day-to-day running of Hong Kong and meddle in its internal politics. Equally, there is a commitment that the people of Hong Kong will not meddle in the politics of China. The temptation for the latter to do so is immense, but the danger of their doing so is equally immense. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that within the Governor's report we should have an indication that he is doing his best to make the people of Hong Kong aware of the risk that they run by constantly seeking to have their cake and eat it.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There is a real risk that, if the Government of China see what they believe to be constant breaches of the accord on what may be broadly called our side—the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Hong Kong—they will not feel unduly bound to stick to it themselves, and that would be a great pity. In the post-war era, every agreement that we have made with the Chinese Government has been kept. They may not have liked it at times and they may have made it plain that they did not like it, but they have stuck to their word. I regret that that Government should now see this Government, of which I
  310
  was a member when the accord was made—the Government whom I support—as being in breach of an accord that has been entered into solemnly.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I did not intend to intervene in my right hon. Friend's speech, but I must do so to make it clear that the Government are quite certain and know very well that this measure is not in breach of the joint agreement and accord, and a close inspection of the quotations read by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), which I hope will be reproduced in Hansard, will demonstrate that.
  Mr. Tebbit: The Minister gives the Government's view. That is not my view. Perhaps more importantly, it is not the view of the Government of China, altough on Second Reading we were told that it was the view of the Government of China.
  Mr. Madden: Before he moves on to other issues, why is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to apologise for that gang of geriatric murderers? Does he not recognise that many people in Hong Kong and elsewhere believe that the massacres which occurred in China last year were an excellent reason why Britain should have called an end to the accords over Hong Kong and 1997? Does he not realise that so many people were outraged by those events that they will dismiss his comments now as an obscene apology for geriatric murderers, who should not be given an inch, and that we should defend the interests of the men and women of Hong Kong in every way that we can?
  Mr. Tebbit: I do not wish to provoke the hon. Gentleman into getting to the stage where he is asking my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to declare war on the Government of China, which would appear to be the logical extension of his remarks. I hope that he is keeping a tally of the number of people who have been shot dead in the present civil disturbances in the Soviet Union, as well as those who were shot dead in the disturbances in Tiananmen square a year or so ago.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Tebbit: May I proceed for a moment? I do not wish to get into a debate with any hon. Member about the regime in China.
  Mr. Madden: What about South Africa?
  Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment. I do not wish to get into a debate about the communist regime in China. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I support any communist regimes anywhere in the world, he is looking at the wrong man and the wrong side of the House. However, I do not wish to be distracted further down that road. I want to follow up some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) concerning the impact of the proposed report by the governor and how we would deal with it in the House.
  Such a report would be a nice thing to have. It will make a nice piece of work for someone to write an article about in The Times or even talk about on Sky television where perhaps it would get a larger audience—[HON.MEMBERS: "What about the Evening Standard?"] Yes, even the Evening Standard—there are many newspapers which are well worth reading.

  311
  How will the report be useful to us in the House? Let us suppose that the Governor's report contains material which we regard as a suitable subject not merely for debate but for a critical debate or even for a vote. What would we vote on? What would be the motion? What effect would it have?
  Mr. Madden: We could take note.
  Mr. Tebbit: Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says we could have a take-note debate, but that is all that we would be able to do about it.
  Although I welcome the new clause, we should not have any misunderstandings that it will make any difference whatsoever to anything that the Governor does in the name of this House, as we have no control over him if we enact the Bill in its present form.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend consider a suggestion for how we might discover the attitude of the Chinese Government? It seems that there have been many suggestions in newsprint about what they believe, and whether the Bill constitutes a breach of the 1984 agreement. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is correct, it is easy for him. Our Government are in constant touch with the Government of China. He could produce a document from the Chinese Government, duly authorised by them explaining that they do not regard the right of entry, which will be granted by the Bill, as in any way a breach of the 1984 agreement. We need not correspond through newsprint. If what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says is true, the Chinese Government will be open, and will say so in an official communication.
  Mr. Tebbit: I do not want to be taken too far down that line, but it is quite clear that if the Government of China heard the accusations made by their own spokesman in the press saying that the Bill is in breach of the undertaking, naturally, as a Government having friendly relationships with our Government, they would have been the first to make a statement correcting it, and would have sent a telegram to the Foreign Office—I am not sure whether the Foreign Office communicates with the Home Office about such matters—setting the record straight. It could have been laid upon the Table and we would all have been comforted by it.
  Mr. Adley rose—
  Mr. Tebbit: I really do not want to detain the House over this issue, but I will give way.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Bradford, West made an impassioned denunciation of the old men in Peking, and we all agree that on the Richter scale of beastliness, it would be hard to find anyone who registers more than they do at the moment. But surely that is not the point. Our responsibility is to the people of Hong Kong and to the real world. The Chinese Government are the people with whom we have to deal, like it or not. Of course we all wish that the Government of China were more like the Government of Luxembourg, but they are not and we have to deal with matters as they are.
  Mr. Tebbit: That is absolutely true. There is little chance that by berating those old men in this Chamber we will do anything to bring a beneficial change in China. As my hon. Friend says, it will make matters worse.
  312
  One other subject has been mentioned in connection with the amendment which I do not think was covered very well by the Labour amendments which have been selected; that is the position of people who may become stateless after 1997. I am not clear about the attitude of the Government towards those people. It would be helpful to all of us if the Under-Secretary were to make the Government's stance absolutely clear. Is it that, if any such persons are left stateless after 1997, they will be automatically granted either British citizenship or rights of abode, or do the Government have some other position?
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that many such people had come from the Indian sub-continent. If that is where they came from, they might have a right to return.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As I understand the position in regard to people who went to Hong Kong from the Indian sub-continent, they gave up any rights that they might have had to return when they agreed to take British citizenship offered in Hong Kong. I think that it is far from satisfactory that the British Government should now be taking a position whereby those people will be left with no proper passport or home following 1997, unless amendments are made to the Bill.
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has a good point. If those people were induced by the British Government to go to Hong Kong by the issue of a document which deprived them of their nationality and will prevent them from returning to the countries from whence they came, it seems, even to me—I am not notably soft on immigration issues—that there is a case for saying that they should be found a home. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give an estimate of the numbers concerned, and we could deduct that from the numbers which would otherwise be admitted under the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Those people who are properly resident in Hong Kong can apply for British dependent territory citizenship now. In 1997 British dependent territory citizens of Chinese descent will automatically become Chinese citizens. There is a question mark beside those who are not of Chinese descent. If they do not become Chinese citizens—that is a matter for the Chinese Government—they will be British overseas citizens, carrying a British overseas passport which will enable them to travel round the world to every country where there are residents who hold such passports. They will not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, but they will have the right of abode in Hong Kong, and that will be guaranteed to them under the joint agreement.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clear that they will not be left as flying Dutchmen—perhaps flying Hong Kongmen would be a better expression—for ever circling the world and never being allowed to alight anywhere. If my hon. Friend can assure me that under the terms of the agreement the Chinese Government accept that they will have a right of abode in Hong Kong, it seems to me that there is no need for us to make specific provision for them. In the event of the Chinese Government not carrying out the undertaking, for some reason, there would be an emergency. We could deal with it in the way in which we always deal with emergencies. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing up that point.
  5 pm
  Sir Peter Blaker: I intend to speak on the two subjects raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). The first related to urgency. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that the matter is urgent because of the brain drain, which has grown worse, in absolute numbers, compared with a couple of years ago. If one talks to representatives of British companies operating in Hong Kong, or with interests or investments in Hong Kong, it immediately becomes clear that they are beginning to feel the damage that is caused by the acceleration of the brain drain.
  I have been told of key managers leaving Hong Kong to go to Australia, Canada and the United States. We are familiar with the recent raid by Qantas Airways in an attempt to take away 250 mechanics from the Hong Kong aircraft engineering industry Fortunately, the raid was unsuccessful, or had very limited success. That is an example of what we shall face in the future if we do not do something about it now. It is essential, therefore, that Parliament should pass the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to the fact that many Hong Kong Chinese go to Canada or other countries to get the right of residence there, either through themselves or their families, and that many of them come back to Hong Kong. I know that many want to return to Hong Kong, but many of them, I fear, having established residence in Canada and having sent their children to school in Canada—for example, in Vancouver, which is a very agreeable city—find it much more difficult to return to Hong Kong and work there than they had expected when they left to go to Canada. We should not be too encouraged about the numbers who return to Hong Kong in those circumstances.
  That is why this Bill is important. It provides a passport for 50,000 heads of families without their having to go and reside in another country for several years, with the consequence that most of them will not return to Hong Kong.
  Mr. Marlow: I ask my right hon. Friend to transpose himself and think of himself as a successful Hong Kong Chinese citizen who is quite well-to-do and who has enough money to take his family with him, after having been offered a British passport. If he were to take the view that life after 1997 under a Hong Kong Chinese Government would be unacceptable and not in the best interests of his family, would he wait until 1997, or would he get out now so that he could re-establish himself and his family and his children's education at the first possible opportunity?
  Sir Peter Blaker: I should certainly stay. I do not see why my hon. Friend thinks that I would want to exchange 15 per cent. income tax for 40 per cent. income tax, or that I should want to exchange the agreeably warm climate of Hong Kong for the sometimes chilly climate of England. My hon. Friend is right off the rails.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the question of emigration to Canada. The reason why people are going to Canada now and returning in the way that the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that they are, but which I know they are, is the nature of the
  314
  Canadian scheme. They have to go now. If they had the option of delaying their emigration to Canada, they would surely do so. It is not that they go to Canada uniquely to establish a right of abode; often they set up businesses in Canada and then return to their businesses in Hong Kong. Frequently those companies intend to trade.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's main point, although our assessment of how many people return to Hong Kong is different.
  My second point relates to the Eurasians and Indians in Hong Kong. The Under-Secretary of State knows that I have been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the matter. I do not intend to repeat everything that I set out in that correspondence. It is right, however, that the matter should be raised, since I hope that I shall receive reassurance on the point from my hon. Friend at the end of the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already explained that the people to whom I refer will have neither British passports nor Chinese passports: they will have British national (overseas) or British dependent territories citizen passports. The Eurasians and the Indians are concerned that they will not have a right of abode elsewhere. They fear—whether they are right or wrong I do not say—that after 1997 they will not be so generously treated as they were during the period of British rule.
  I have received representations from Mr. Eric Ho, a distinguished former senior civil servant, the president of the Welfare League which looks after the interests of the Eurasians. He refers to the great loyalty to the Crown and to this country of the Eurasians in Hong Kong. He quoted an extract from the dispatch by General Maltby after the capture of Hong Kong by the Japanese in December 1941.
  General Maltby said:
  "In closing my despatch I wish to pay especial tribute to the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps … To quote examples seems almost invidious, but I should like to place on record the superb gallantry of No. 3 (Eurasian) Company at Wong Nei Chong Gap".
  That is a striking example of the loyalty that the Eurasian population of Hong Kong have always had to this country. Mr. Ho estimates that only 1,000 passports would be required, not for heads of families but for individuals, to provide for the needs of the Eurasian population.
  Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend address his mind to a point that keeps worrying me during the debate: that 50,000 passports will largely go to 50,000 influential, articulate people who know their way around? Is my right hon. Friend willing to contemplate the following proposition: if by giving such an advantage to people who are in a position to apply we thereby destroy the atmosphere for the remaining 5 million Hong Kong citizens who are not so articulate and well connected, shall we be serving all the people of Hong Kong well?
  Sir Peter Blaker: That is not my assessment of the likely effect on the morale of those who remain in Hong Kong. It is a difficult problem, but I believe that we are right to do what we are planning to do. In my view, it would be possible to put the figure a little higher than 50,000 heads of families, but that proposal is not before us.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend referred to the Tootal case. He said that it wants to bring 25 heads of household to this country. Given the

  315
  number of managers who are eligible, and given also the number of applicants that there are bound to be, it is most unlikely that all 25 managers will be successful in their applications. How can my right hon. Friend take the view that that will be good for the morale of the Tootal work force, let alone for the work forces of other companies, if that should prove to be divisive? What about the other managers that Tootal has not chosen for selection but who consider that they should be selected? The proposal will be totally divisive when it comes to the management of work forces in Hong Kong. It cannot possibly have the result for which the Government hope.
  Sir Peter Blaker: Since the Second Reading debate I have had conversations with Mr. Geoffrey Maddrell, the managing director of Tootal, on that precise point. My hon. Friend is wrong to say that Tootal wants to bring 25 managers to this country. Tootal wants them to stay in Hong Kong, and that is what they want to do; indeed, most of them are working in south China. However, Mr. Maddrell acknowledged that there would be a problem if all the 25 are unable to obtain passports. Nevertheless, he believes that it is preferable that some of them should obtain passports rather than that none of them should. That, I believe, is a tenable position.
  Reverting to the question of the Indians, it has been suggested that they were induced by a former British Government to Hong Kong, but that was not the reality. After the second world war, they made a choice between going for British nationality in Hong Kong or for Indian nationality. The Indian population has played a distinguished role in Hong Kong, particularly in commerce, and has been important to the colony's economy. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that there are many thousands of Indians in Hong Kong, but he was overstating the case.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary says in a letter to me:
  "If, against all expectations, any solely British national with no claim to Chinese nationality came under severe pressure to leave Hong Kong, the Government of the day would he expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom."
  He was referring explicitly to the Eurasians, but I believe that he was intending a similar assurance to be given in relation to the Indians. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reaffirm that assurance, and perhaps go further in his response today?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I cannot go beyond my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance, because it was intended to cover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, Eurasians and other Asians—the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who may not have Chinese citizenship after 1997. Who they will be is unclear because those who have Chinese citizenship is not something for us to determine—it is a matter for the People's Republic of China.
  Those belonging to the ethnic minorities who are not included and who are legitimately in Hong Kong not only have the opportunity of becoming British overseas citizens, as I described earlier, with their situation guaranteed under the joint declaration, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear—and I am happy to repeat now—that if pressure is put upon them despite the joint declaration and their rights
  316
  under it, and if it became difficult for them to lead their lives in Hong Kong, we would look most carefully at any claim to right of settlement here, outside the rules.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am by no means satisfied that those who will have British overseas passports and British overseas status after 1997 will be welcome in Hong Kong. The Chinese are not noted for their welcome of other ethnic groups within their own society. I have no reason to believe that the Chinese Government will take a particularly sympathetic view of the presence of the Indian members of the Hong Kong community after 1997.
  It is unfortunate that the Government have come to the House today without being able to give precise figures for how many such people there will be. We have a duty to bring them here if we have to do so, so I fear that we may expect substantial extra numbers after 1997, over and above those catered for in the Bill, to whom we shall have to offer homes in this country. It is important for the House to know how many people there may be, and that that estimate should be incorporated in the overall total being considered today, rather than have us return to those people at a later stage—as I warn the House we shall inevitably have to do.
  It is extremely important that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reports regularly to the House, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West, (Mr. Madden) suggested, when the Governor reports to him. Nothing in the Bill says that he has to do so. I should like a categorical assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Home Secretary will report at least annually in detail to the House on what he has been told by the Governor. That is the least assurance that the House should seek.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: If my hon. Friend is saying that there should be an annual report made by the Governor to our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and that it should be available to the House, that is exactly what new clause 12 will achieve.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am delighted to hear it. Perhaps I misunderstand the new clause. I thought that it only required the Governor to report to the Home Secretary—but if I have misunderstood the new clause, I am delighted.
  It is also extremely important that the Governor should report on the speed and percentage of take-up in each category. I share the belief of the hon. Member for Bradford, West that there will be a sense of urgency among those in Hong Kong to make their applications for inclusion in the categories—not least because of the number of applications likely to be made against the number of available places. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act, the Government will face a deluge of applications. There is a great danger that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary comes to the House next year with the Governor's first report, all 50,000 places will have been filled, which would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
  5.15 pm
  I again ask my hon. Friend to tell the House what guidance will be given to the Governor on the speed which he should fill the available places. If the scheme is to be

  317
  successful, and if it is to be spread among the people whom we are attempting to benefit and to persuade to remain in Hong Kong, there must be an annual quota.
  Residents aged 30 to 40 are more than likely to have young teenage children. My understanding is that, as soon as those children reach 18, they will cease to qualify under the Bill and therefore will be separated from their families, should their families decide to come to this country to live. That cannot be something that the Government envisage. It would impose enormous extra pressure on any Hong Kong citizen with a BDTC passport who wants to make an application under the scheme. If residents have children who will shortly be 18, they will rush to make an application.
  When one considers the number of people involved against the number of places available, it is horrifying to think that anyone would seriously propose that the scheme have a stabilising effect on Hong Kong. I refer to the guidance on the working of the Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) attempted, rightly, to have incorporated in the Bill. Unfortunately, that amendment is not before the House today.
  In the business and management category, 342,800 people are eligible under the scheme, but only 19,703 will be allocated places. In engineering, there are 57,300 possible candidates but only 3,230 places. In medicine and science, 44,700 would qualify but only 2,584 would be offered places. Members of my old profession, lawyers, will do particularly badly. Less than 1 per cent. of the 3,700 eligible will be allocated one of the 323 places. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too many".] I agree that we could do without further competition, but how will it stabilise the legal profession in Hong Kong if only 323 of their number will be offered passports? I await with breathless excitement to hear how my hon. Friend the Minister will satisfy me on that point.
  The Governor will also have to report on the categories for residents in sensitive service and in the disciplined services. The number of places stated in the Bill to be available to those who have given outstanding service to the Crown, and who might be in danger if they remain in Hong Kong after 1997, is 6,300. Where does that figure come from? Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that 6,300 is the number of heads of households who fall into that category? Nothing in the Second Reading or Committee debates, which I read in great detail, sets out how that figure of 6,300 was arrived at.
  Mr. Butcher: If the House accepts that the 50,000 places will be rapidly allocated and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) will be among those asking for more categories of people to be admitted, are we not debating the beginning of the minimum bid, from which the bidding will go up when we come to debate the Governor's reports in years to come?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree. When the 50,000 places have been filled and an awful lot of people in categories to which places clearly must be allocated have been left, then the 50,000 which the Government have undertaken as a maximum will have to be breached. That is one of the reasons why I am worried and why it is essential that regular reports to this House show how we are progressing, so that we can take whatever steps are necessary either to allow more people in—I would find
  318
  that difficult—or somehow to stem the flood in other categories and to alter the way in which we choose those who will come.
  I hope that the Minister will tell me how the 6,300 figure miraculously appeared and how—there is nothing in the memorandum to tell us—if there are more than 6,300 in this category, a choice will be made between them. If I read the memorandum correctly, the points system does not apply to this group.
  The points system does apply, however, to the disciplined services. Seven thousand places have been allocated to those services, spread across eight separate services on a proportional basis. Here, too, it is inconceivable that many of these services will have enough allocated places to satisfy the demand or to stabilise the position in Hong Kong, the latter being one of the two fundamental requirements that the Government seek to meet in the Bill.
  I am sorry to say that I am profoundly disturbed by the proposal that the memorandum should be adopted, but I welcome the new clause, because it will at least give the House a regular report on how the measure is being implemented.
  Mr. George Walden: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument, which he has expressed with a certain elegant scepticism, but I am left wondering what the logical conclusion of it is. It seems to me that it can either be that more people ought to be offered more places or that no one ought to be offered any places, which brings us back to the Government's point of view.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; sad to say, the amendment that I tabled has not been chosen by Mr. Speaker, so I cannot enlighten my hon. Friend on what the correct solution is.
  In my view, there are two categories that we have an honourable commitment to allow into this country: first, people who have done service that will put them in danger after 1997. I have dealt with them in some detail. Secondly, there are those who will be left stateless or with inadequate passports after 1997—especially people from the Indian subcontinent, about whom I spoke earlier. If we gave the right of abode and citizenship to those two categories, we would fulfil our commitment to Hong Kong and the commitment that the Government have given to the people of this country, which was outlined so eloquently on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In that way, we should avoid flooding this country with immigrants from other places, given that we are an overcrowded island experiencing great difficulties already with assimilating the immigrants whom we have taken in in the past 30 years.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) for tabling the new clause in answer to some of the debates that took place in Committee. I admire the courteous and professional way in which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) conducted our debates in Committee, which greatly helped the passage of the Bill.
  Although I welcome an annual report, it has already been pointed out that the new clause is deficient, in that the report is to the Secretary of State, not necessarily to

  319
  Parliament. So the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will not get his way if the new clause is passed without amendment.
  Such a report may well go to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the Home Department is not known for releasing the least bit of information that could possibly be classified as confidential. I very much doubt whether the report will see the light of day outside a few offices and desks in the Home Department—unless the Home Office carries out what I understood to be an undertaking from the Minister that he would present the report to the House. That presentation and the report's contents are important.
  If I understand the Government's argument aright, the report will contain no reference to categories of people not accommodated under the Bill—the Eurasian and Indian population, and the spouses who will be dealt with in an amendment to be moved later. Categories not dealt with in the Bill will be dealt with exactly as they would be under the British Nationality Act 1981. So the categories for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), in a caring and understandable way, sought exemption cannot possibly be included in such a report.
  The argument that they should be accommodated by the Bill and dealt with in the annual report is symptomatic of the chaos that the Bill will create in Hong Kong because of the jealousies and hard feelings that will be generated when one person is selected and another is not. One category, for whom we have already heard special pleading on the Floor of the House, will not be accommodated by the Bill. The whole process of trying to select one person in preference to another is divisive and will profoundly undermine confidence in the future of Hong Kong.
  Mr. Butcher: Is not the House coming to a general agreement that the Bill is custom designed to alienate more people than it placates? Are we not setting in train a series of rather unpleasant rows for the remaining years until 1997? Is this a way to draw up legislation and immigration and community relations policy in the colony? Will we not have to come back to the House in coming years for rows about categories of people who have not been successful, about further categories that should be considered and about further numbers? Surely the House should think again, even at this late stage, about the time-bomb that we are priming for future rows?
  Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and it will be worse than he has said. Although there is no appeal process, the people of Hong Kong are well educated and perfectly capable of sending letters. Most of those whom I have met—some of them from humble backgrounds—are capable, for instance, of writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South to outline their dissatisfaction, which I am sure he would then bring to the attention of Ministers.
  I believe that the Minister introduced the idea of the annual report because of the constitutional outrage contained in clause 1(1), which specifies:
  "the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens up to 50,000 persons recommended to him for that purpose by the Governor of Hong Kong".
  It is quite wrong that a governor in a colonial country should be able to register people as British citizens without reference to an elected Minister who is responsible to this House.
  320
  By introducing the annual report—I trust the Minister's undertaking that he will produce it for the House's inspection and debate, but that is not certain—the Minister will be accountable for the actions and decisions taken by the Governor and his appointed sub-committees. That is an outrageous innovation, to which we shall regret. That is the kind of ingenious and generous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has tried to meet the point. The Bill is difficult for him. He finds it difficult to change one jot or iota because of the consequences of so doing for immigration policy, particularly the interpretation of our law as enshrined in the British Nationality Act 1981.
  5.30 pm
  I hope that the report will state how many people applied for British citizenship, how many were refused and why they were refused. Many of these applications will be made by private sector companies and groups and even by people within the civil service, but there will be no explanation of why others have been left out. That will cause much resentment, and I hope that the report will explain why they have been left out.
  Equally, the report should say how many people have been accepted and why they were accepted. The Bill has a specific purpose—to retain those in the service of the Government or of private sector businesses in Hong Kong. We need to know why they were offered British citizenship. We want to know how many people stayed, having been offered British citizenship in Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and many people from OMELCO—I am glad to see that we welcomed the leader of OMELCO—believe that, once people have been granted British citizenship, they will remain in Hong Kong. But someone with young children who wishes them to continue their education will wish to move to Britain soon after they receive citizenship.
  We should see whether the Bill is working as the Government said it would—whether it is retaining those people in Hong Kong up to 1997 and beyond. Surely the argument is they should stay beyond 1997 and continue the amazing success of Hong Kong.
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is on the verge of making a point that has not been picked up by every hon. Member. Once these people are granted British passports, they are British citizens, but we would have no record of whether they have come to live in Britain, because we do not keep a record of British passport holders entering Britain. All we would know is whether they had left Hong Kong. We would not know where they had gone, whether they were intent on staying away or whether they intended to reside here. Many of them will be highly talented people, which is why they are being selected.
  I can imagine the advertisements in the Hong Kong newspapers from British companies, once it is known that they have British passports, seeking to recruit them to work in Britain. They would be good employees for those British companies and they would have the right of abode here because they would be full British citizens. The door would be wide open for massive emigration from Hong Kong—the complete opposite of what the Government say they want.
  Mr. Wells: My right hon. Friend is entirely right, and shares my concern. These people, once they have a British passport enabling them to travel freely, will have the

  321
  opportunity to offer their services to many of the highest bidding companies not only in this country but elsewhere in the world.
  We have been assured by the Minister that the Hong Kong Government keep a record of those leaving the colony and of their destination, but they would not know whether they got off the plane on the way back to Britain or, as my right hon. Friend says, whether they had arrived here and are still here. It is essential that the report records those who have stayed in Hong Kong and those who have not, so that we can judge whether the Government's action is working as they said it would.
  As we all know, the success of Hong Kong depends not on our giving 50,000 heads of households a British passport and citizenship but on the development of relations with China. If the purpose of the Bill is to try to reinforce confidence in the future of Hong Kong, the annual report should record and detail how relationships have been conducted between Hong Kong and China, not only at ministerial level, about which I hope we will hear, but at official level. With robust, continuous and persuasive effort and contact with the Chinese Government, confidence will build and hon. Members will be able to ascertain whether the Hong Kong Government are fulfilling the job we expect them to do—to try to get on with China, for the benefit of Hong Kong's future, as well as they can. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley).
  The Bill's success will depend on whether the Government of Hong Kong have made the right proposals for democracy and a directly elected legislature in Hong Kong to replace the British Government, who have provided the Government in Hong Kong so successfully over the years. The successful functioning of that body and the participation of the Hong Kong people in leadership decisions will ensure that Hong Kong continues to operate as a capitalist enclave under democratic government, as the agreement of 1984, which we are treaty-bound to honour, sets out.
  Mr. Adley: Hong Kong has succeeded despite there being no worthwhile democratic institutions there. As a matter of debate, will my hon. Friend comment on two points? First, why would changing that improve Hong Kong? Secondly, as the joint agreement calls for the maintenance of stability and prosperity, why does my hon. Friend think that fundamental change to the democratic institutions is in accord with the 1984 agreement?
  Mr. Wells: Let me take the last point first. We are committed, by the treaty, to an elected legislative assembly and an elected or indirectly elected president or chief executive. Hong Kong has not had a directly elected assembly, and I have been a critic of that for many years, without success.
  I have not been successful because the Hong Kong formula has worked. It has worked because those administering Hong Kong on behalf of the Crown have been responsible to this Chamber through the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It has been possible to change the chief executive and the Civil Service. That offered an in-built means of preventing corruption from taking place. The tradition and culture of officials of the Hong Kong Government who are of British origin
  322
  were also in-built. For that reason, they built houses and took account of the social conditions of Hong Kong, which is why we can see the culture and social ideas that have been a feature of this country repeated in Hong Kong. That is part of the great success of Hong Kong. Hong Kong's present problem is how to replace that. It must be done by treaty, democracy and a directly elected assembly.
  Mr. Walden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a little unfair to criticise the Government, as has been done implicitly or explicitly by both sides of the House, for provoking the Chinese by giving 50,000 passports to their future citizens and at the same time criticise the Government for not provoking the Chinese by moving towards democracy much faster than Peking wants and, incidentally, risking destabilisation of Hong Kong on a much broader and deeper scale than is risked by the Bill?
  Mr. Wells: I do not accept that analysis. I am confused about the reason why the Government are prepared to offend the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government have issued press releases and sent letters saying that they regard this action as, in spirit, an abrogation of the treaty that they signed. They believe that we are not working in accordance with the spirit of the agreements.
  On the other hand, the British Government are not prepared to press the Chinese Government on the issue of democracy. When the Foreign Affairs Select Committee visited Peking, we went into this question in great detail, and the result is recorded in the Committee's report. Just before the events in Tiananmen square, the Chinese Government said that they were prepared to let democracy develop at the speed at which those in Hong Kong wanted it to develop. After Tiananmen square—I am not saying that it was a little lily-livered and in two minds before then—OMELCO came forward with support for the establishment of democracy on a much faster time scale than has now been agreed.
  I can only welcome the assertions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that he will work to persuade Chinese Ministers to accelerate that programme so that there is a directly elected assembly and directly elected chief executive before 1997, so that the people of Hong Kong can begin to breathe life and credibility into those institutions and fulfil the work of governing Hong Kong democratically. I hope that progress on that democracy, which is essential for confidence in the future of Hong Kong, will be reported upon.
  There should be a report on the economy and the way in which the private sector is acting. Much of the Bill has been stimulated by the private sector in Hong Kong being unwilling, understandably, to have some of the crucial skilled people and leaders in companies leave. I should like to be able to test the private sector's commitment to the future of Hong Kong. I should like to see in the report a paragraph stating how many of those people continue to reside and trade in Hong Kong, how many of the companies have sought different places for their headquarters and the extent to which these people, who are asking us to make this sacrifice, are prepared to make sacrifices for confidence in Hong Kong's future.
  It is essential that we get the emigration numbers straight, and this should be clear in the report. There is

  323
  confusion, as the House has demonstrated. Looking at the numbers purely in raw terms, the emigration figures this year are down compared with last year. Emigration from Hong Kong has always taken place, but in making a judgment on these matters, it is important to consider the categories emigrating. Whether the Bill is a success or not will depend on whether that emigration is stemmed and whether it is stemmed in particular categories.
  The report must include a record of the Chinese Government's attitude to the future of Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong and its people rests increasingly with the attitude, work and confidence-building measures of the Chinese Government to build Hong Kong under two systems, one country.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I share the surprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not appear to have any final power to override the Governor's recommendations as to who might be admitted. I am surprised that the Home Office agreed to that. I should have thought that there were circumstances in which such a power would be necessary. I should like to hear an explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister as to why this provision is not included in the Bill.
  I should like to comment on what I believe would be an important part of a report from the Governor. The idea of such a report is welcome and I am glad that the report is to be made available to the House. When the Government first published their scheme, I was concerned because, in 1981, I had been heavily involved in the passage of the British Nationality Bill.
  The principle embodied in that legislation was that British citizenship was to be based on a number of criteria, all of which implied close involvement in Britain. Those criteria were birth, descent, residence or marriage, and descent did not stretch far back into the past. I was afraid that the scheme might be used as a convenience by people in Hong Kong who would see it as a way of, to put it crudely, establishing a bolthole, and who would come to Britain to exercise their citizenship but might then disappear fairly rapidly for other parts of the world. That seemed to be a problem and a sense in which the scheme might be out of line with the philosophy behind the British Nationality Bill.
  I was relieved, therefore, when the Government included in the legislation the provision that spouses and children—the dependants of those who were to be given passports—would be classified as British citizens by descent. That meant that, at least if they went overseas, they would not have the same power to pass on citizenship to the next generation and we would therefore not see the proliferation, which I feared, of British citizens living in many parts of the world who had no real links with the United Kingdom. The inclusion of that provision was one reason that led me, after much thought, to support the legislation on Second Reading.
  I am concerned about one group of people living in Hong Kong who, by almost any common-sense standards, clearly have great loyalty to the United Kingdom but who may not be served by the Bill—employees of the British Council. As a vice-chairman of the British Council, I obviously have a particular interest in this matter. I am
  324
  talking not about London-based employees but about the locally based employees. I understand that there were about 60 such employees in April.
  These employees may well fall into one of the relevant occupational categories proposed in the draft scheme. They may be included in the information services or education groups, and of course I would welcome that. The question is whether they would score enough points under the points system. There are two respects in which they would obviously do well—command of English and British links. Those two categories would clearly be beneficial to them, but in neither case do they score highly in the proposed points system. They get only 50 points for each. There is a risk that people who are working for the British Council will not qualify under the scheme, which would be nonsense.
  I am not asking for additional places; I am simply saying that these people should be allowed to qualify. No group of people in Hong Kong serves the British cause more loyally, and often for a longer time, than British Council employees. I know that a similar argument could be made for the employees of the British Trade Commission and I am aware of the great importance of promoting British trade in Hong Kong, but it is specifically the British Council with which I am concerned. I therefore hope that it will be seen clearly from the first Governor's report that those who work for the British Council who have applied for British citizenship will be well served. I would go further: I hope that we shall not have to wait for the first Governor's report to get the reassurance that we seek. I hope that we may receive it from the Minister this evening.
  Mr. Marlow: The Bill gives the Governor of Hong Kong a great many scarcely fettered powers. The new clause seeks to provide that the Governor should make an annual report on the discharge of his functions. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the report would he made available to the House. I trust that, in his closing remarks, he will make it clear that the report will be open to debate.
  The Bill has been introduced to deal with problems that may or may not arise in the future. The future is uncertain; circumstances may change. It is vital, on an issue as sensitive as this, that as those circumstances change, the House should have an annual opportunity to debate the situation and to commend or recommend any changes that we may feel are necessary.
  The Bill is about the way in which the Governor should discharge his responsibilities. I am sure that he should discharge those responsibilities in the light of commitments that have been given. Commitments have been given at many levels and by many different people. Initially— and the Bill is the result—commitments were given to the people of Hong Kong by Ministers or the Prime Minister to the effect that provisions would be introduced to allow up to 50,000 persons and their families to come to the United Kingdom. Those commitments were made by the Government; they have not yet been made by Parliament, and it is not the role of Parliament to act as a rubber stamp for what the Government say they wish to do.
  We have other commitments, which go wider. We have commitments under international law. We have commitments within the European Community. We have commitments to deal with refugees and asylum. But we also have a commitment that is more important than all of those commitments put together: we have a commitment

  325
  to the British people—to the people of these islands, whose only home this is. The Conservative party has made that commitment clear on a number of occasions. During our election campaign in 1970, we said in our manifesto that there would be no further large-scale permanent immigration into this country. The Conservative party won the 1970 election and has been in government for most of the time since that election. Since that time, however, we have had a migration into this country of between 750,000 and 1 million people from the third world.
  I do not believe that what we have done since 1970 accords with the commitment that we gave in that year In every election manifesto since 1970, we have given a firm, powerful—and, I hope, binding—commitment to the British people that we will take account of their fears and concerns about immigration. In 1987 we said:
  "We will tighten the existing law to ensure that control over settlement becomes even more effective."
  Yet the Bill suggests that an extra 250,000 people of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds should be allowed to come to Britain, which is the only home—the already restricted space—that the British people have. To proceed with the Bill would be, should be—and will be, if the Bill is passed—a blot on the conscience of the Government.
  It is true that we have many commitments, but we cannot fulfil all of them. The most important commitment that we have made is the commitment to the British people, whose Parliament this is, who supported us, who voted for us and in whose interests the Government should act.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this Government—and this Parliament—are also responsible, as the only Government the people of Hong Kong have, for the people of Hong Kong, and that must also be weighed in the balance?
  Mr. Marlow: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that we had many commitments, and many of them are conflicting commitments. Obviously we must take account of the circumstances in Hong Kong. We have responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong and we must discharge them as best we can. I would wish the Government to do that. But the Government of Britain have an overriding commitment and it is to the people of this country. That has to come first.
  Mr. Maclennan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says no. I wonder whether he is aware that more than half the children in Inner London education authority schools are of non-British ethnic origin. London is our capital city. When those children grow up, they will be citizens of this country. That will mean that half our citizens—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Mr. Speaker told the House that we should have a wide-ranging debate on the new clause, but the debate is now becoming enormously elastic, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the new clause.
  Mr. Marlow: As you have instructed me not to do so, Madam Speaker, I shall not follow up the intervention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
  The new clause says:
  "The Governor of Hong Kong shall submit to the Secretary of State an annual report".
  It will be an annual report on how he has done his job and carried out his functions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) suggested a number of issues which he thinks should be included in the report. It is also the intention of the Bill to keep people in Hong Kong. I believe that, if circumstances in China do not improve—indeed, if they get worse—anyone who has been offered a British passport will not delay or stay until 1997.
  Such people will not keep the ship on course and their businesses running; they will seek to get out with their families as soon as possible. If they have to get out, they will get out now. If they have to re-establish a career, they will do it early. If they have to get their funds, cash and investments out of Hong Kong, better safe than sorry. If they have a young family whom they want to educate, the sooner they can bring them to a country with a different system of education and get them on the way to being educated, the better.
  It is important that in each of the annual reports, the effectiveness of the Bill in fulfilling the Government's intention should be made crystal clear. Passports have been issued. How many people, having been issued those passports, will leave at the earliest opportunity? If the House has that information, we may be able to reach a view as to whether the Bill is correct and effective or whether we wish to amend it further.
  In his report, the Governor should also make an account of changes in China. In the past year, the whole nature of Europe has changed; the whole nature of the Soviet Union has changed; it is to be hoped that the whole nature of the conflict between east and west—the cold war—is also changing.
  Mr. George Foulkes: You have not changed.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that I am still the same. But the British people are still the same. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that my view of the Bill is shared by 90 per cent. of his constituents, just as it is shared by 90 per cent. of mine. The nature of circumstances in China 'could change, and if those circumstances change, the Bill may no longer be necessary.
  Again, the House may seek to amend the provisions in the Bill. As I have said, the Governor will have unfettered power. He will have a fantastic amount of power. According to clause 1(1):
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens up to 50,000 persons".
  I presume that the Governor can decide how close to that
  figure of 50,000 that should apply. If circumstances in China change, I presume that the Governor will be able to reduce that number to 30,000 or 20,000.
  I am more concerned by the provision that
  "the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens … persons recommended to him for that purpose by the Governor of Hong Kong".
  What would happen if my hon. Friend the Minister, in the discharge of his duties, was aware of the fact that a person in Hong Kong was connected with a criminal organization

  327
  such as the Triads and connected with someone who was already in Britain? Suppose the Governor had said that that person should be issued with a British passport and the Home Office felt that it was not appropriate for that person to enter Britain because of the activities in which he might well indulge and there was evidence that he might well indulge, my hon. Friend the Minister would be completely powerless to do anything about that.
  Mr. Madden: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is talking abject nonsense. The Home Secretary would simply issue an exclusion order stating that the presence of the individual concerned was not conducive to good order in this country, and that person would not be admitted.
  6 pm
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but that is matter of assertion and proof. If the person concerned has a British passport —
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marlow: Of course.
  Mr. Lloyd: I hesitate to interrupt, because I know that I might give my hon. Friend cause to continue for another 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. However, I want to assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a duty to assure himself that any recommendation from the Governor is of a person of the right character to receive British citizenship. If he is not so assured, he may not register that person as a British citizen.
  Mr. Marlow: I accept my hon. Friend's assertion in principle. However, as I read clause 1, it appears that that is not the case.
  Mr. Lloyd: Read the whole Bill.
  Mr. Marlow: I have indeed read the whole Bill. Clause 1 would seem to allow that to happen.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman should not make such categoric assertions without reading clause 5, which explicitly gives the Secretary of State the power to reject a recommendation if he believes that that person
  "is not of good character."
  Mr. Marlow: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; no doubt this debate will continue for some time.
  I am concerned about other issues in the Bill. The Governor will put forward a scheme which will be agreed by the House, but he shall be authorised
  "to decide at his discretion between persons equally qualified under the scheme;"
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us how the Governor will carry out that judgment of Solomon. Will there be a ballot? Will people draw straws? How will those details be considered?
  The Governor is getting a great deal of power. For the first time in British history, a civil servant, not an elected Government or a Minister, will be entitled effectively to award British citizenship to people from outside this country. That is a matter that should cause the House a great deal of concern, and I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Although it seems a long time ago, I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland
  328
  (Mr. Maclennan), who said that the new clause is narrow. It would help progress this evening if I were to treat it as such.
  I was glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) appeared to be happy to accept new clause 12 in place of new clause 1. He raised a number of issues; and indeed every hon. Member had his own ideas about what he would like to see in the Governor's report. I have noted those points and I will consider them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and with the Governor. However, the new clause requires the report to be on the Governor's functions under the Bill. The Governor will certainly want to set his report in the broadest context so that it is useful to the Home Secretary, to the Government and to the House so that we may all judge how our duties and responsibilities are being discharged in Hong Kong.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) were anxious that the report, which I said would be made available to the House by the Home Secretary, should be debated. That is not a matter for me or for the Home Secretary; it is a matter for the House. However, the Home Secretary and I would be pleased if the report was debated in the House because we would like Parliament to give continuing attention to Hong Kong and to the evolution of our duties and responsibilities there.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West also wondered whether the appropriate Select Committees, either the Foreign Affairs Select Committee or the Home Affairs Select Committee, would also take a close interest in these matters. Again, that is not a matter for the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or me; it is a matter for the Select Committees concerned and the House. I hope that those Committees will interest themselves in the subject, and it would be valuable if they did.
  Most of the other points that were raised in the debate either affect issues on which I cannot give definitive answers now or relate to matters that will arise in later amendments. However, I want to refer to an observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I intervened once in his speech and I did riot want to encourage him by doing so again. He said that a Minister—I do not know who he was referring to—intimated on Second Reading that the Government believed that the Government of China were happy with the Bill. No Minister made such a statement on Second Reading. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he hoped in due time that the Government of the People's Republic of China, and I hope some of my hon. Friends, would come to understand fully the intentions of the Bill and be happy with the results that it produces.
  Mr. Adley: May I ask my hon. Friend—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister was not giving way. He has resumed his seat, and it is now my duty to put the Question.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  ROLE OF THE COURTS
  'Nothing in this Act effects the Jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the operation of any provisions of this Act or made under it.'.—[Mr. Darling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out 'Neither'.
  No. 38, in page 1, line 21, leave out 'nor' and insert 'or'.
  No 39, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'any reason' and insert 'reasons'.
  No 40, in page 1, line 23, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 24.
  No. 49, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  '() Nothing in this Section affects the jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act.'.
  No 18, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
  '(5) Any Hong Kong resident of a class, group, category or description qualified for registration under subsection (1) above, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 to this Act who, having made application to the Governor to be recommended for registration under section 1(1) of this Act, is not so recommended shall have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.'
  Mr. Darling: We move from new clause 12, which was uncontroversial, to one that may be controversial. However, as it is quite narrowly focused, it may be possible narrowly to focus our discussions on it. The purpose of the new clause is to make it clear that it will be possible to raise proceedings judicially to review any decision that may be made under this legislation.
  It would not normally be necessary to add such a new clause because it is normally well settled in law that it is possible to review any administrative decision. Unfortunately, because of the language in which the Bill is framed, it would appear that it is the Government's intention to exclude any such possibility.
  Before considering the question of judicial review, as there was some confusion when we discussed the matter in Committee, perhaps I should make it clear exactly what we are discussing. We are not discussing the possibility of an individual appeal; we are discussing the more narrow legal concept of judicial review of a decision.
  If I illustrate it, the position will perhaps become clear. If an individual were awarded a certain number of points under the scheme, it would not be possible for him to appeal simply because he did not like the number of points that he was allocated. It would be possible to raise proceedings only if his allegation was that those allocating the points had taken into account matters that they should not have taken into account or, alternatively, failed to take into account matters that they should have considered. It is a well settled point of law, but it is fairly narrow. It is the way open to individuals to question an administrator when an administrator has done something that he should not have done because he had no power to do it or, alternatively, when an administrator failed to do the things that he should have done.
  I want to make that point clear because this is not a wrecking measure; it is not as amendment No. 18 appears to be. I do not see any purpose in clogging up a system to
  330
  allow perhaps 200,000 appeals for anyone who was aggrieved who did not qualify under the scheme. That would be quite wrong. I make the Opposition's position quite clear. We oppose the legislation for the reasons that we have outlined, but it has not been our purpose, either in Committee or today on Report, to put forward amendments other than in the spirit of trying to improve a Bill as best we can, notwithstanding the fact that we consider that its basis is wrong.
  It is quite wrong that the Government should attempt or purport to exclude any possibility of appeal. Clause 1(5) provides:
  "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 by or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
  On one construction that would mean that it would not even be possible to question any decision, let alone any appeal, and it could be that anyone attempting to lodge papers to start appeal proceedings would be told by the clerk, "Sorry, any proceedings under this Act are simply not competent." I know that the Government have a slightly different interpretation, and I shall refer to it shortly, but perhaps it should be stated again and again that it does not matter what any hon. Member says during proceedings in this House. A court will have regard to what is in the Act, not to what Ministers or hon. Members have to say.
  That issue was raised in Committee, and the Government's position was set out in a letter by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). The Minister said:
  "I have now … considered the matter again but have concluded that an amendment would indeed be unnecessary, and furthermore would be unhelpful."
  I am bound to say that I cannot see how spelling out a
  citizen's rights can ever be unhelpful, but, to the Government, perhaps such a step would be unhelpful. The Minister went on to say:
  "Whatever grounds there may have been for including section 44(3) in the 1981 Act there are none for including a corresponding provision in the Bill."
  Section 44(3) of the 1981 Act, which is the British Nationality Act that governs citizenship in this country, has a similar privilege. It states quite explicitly:
  "Nothing in this section affects the jurisdiction of any court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act."
  In other words, it is quite clear that, under the British Nationality Act 1981, it is possible, and is explicitly stated, judicially to review any decision made under it. There is no corresponding provision within the Bill, and our new clause would add one.
  The Government seem to think that there is a distinction between the 1981 Act and this Bill. Again I refer to the letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East. He said that the 1981 Act
  "confers entitlements to be registered as a British citizen … The Bill confers no such rights".
  I fail to see that distinction. The 1981 Act spells out when one is entitled to citizenship and when one is not, and the Bill sets up a system, but the result is exactly the same. Under the Bill, it is possible to acquire British citizenship with all the rights that citizenship acquired under the 1981 Act can achieve. I believe firmly that it should be possible judicially to review decisions made either under this Bill or

  331
  under any other Act. As I said, the Bill entitles an individual, if he or she has a grievance about how the system works, to air it before a court. That seems to be a basic concept of human rights and one that we should not exclude.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new clause would protect a person who was deemed to be not of good character? Could such an individual appeal against such a judgment?
  Mr. Darling: It depends. To appeal or to get a court to uphold that the decision was bad, he would have to show that the Secretary of State took into account factors that he should not have taken into account before coming to his conclusion. If the Home Secretary, in exercising his discretion, takes account of all relevant considerations, the matter is not subject to appeal.
  6.15 pm
  In other words, if the Home Secretary looked at all the facts before him and said, "I think that this person is of bad character," that would be the end of the matter. However, if he looked at all the facts before him and they did not disclose evidence of bad character but he then said, "I do not like this individual because he voted Labour at the last election; therefore, I think that he is of bad character," that matter could be reviewed judicially, or at least it could be so reviewed under the new clause.
  Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as he rightly says, under the 1981 Act it is impossible for an applicant who is refused to appeal? Indeed, there is no right for an explanation from the Secretary of State if an applicant is refused. However, it is possible for an hon. Member or a Member of the other place to ask the Secretary of State for an explanation. Clearly, if the decision is thought to have been taken on incorrect information, it is possible to ask the Secretary of State to review the decision to refuse citizenship. Am I right in assuming that, if that were the case under this scheme, it would be open to residents of Hong Kong who are refused to ask Members of this House or Members of the other place to make representations to the Secretary of State in the way that I have described?
  Mr. Darling: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no. The subsection to which I referred makes it clear that neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decisions. That matter was raised at some length in Committee. It would appear that, as the legislation is phrased, no reason shall be given. That means that any aggrieved individual may be at some disadvantage. In the case of a decision by a housing department in failing to allocate a set number of points to a housing application, it is normally quite easy for an individual to find out why the decision was made.
  The Government have phrased the Bill in terms to exclude the giving of reasons. That is regrettable. It is regrettable also that, as I understand it, it appears to be the view of those at least who purport to speak for Hong Kong those who come to this country—that that is entirely acceptable in Hong Kong. I do not accept that. Our new clause would not put that right. We explored that matter in Committee, but we are not able to do so on Report. Those in another place, when considering the legislation, may want to return to that point.
  332
  I accept that my new clause is limited to that extent, but my primary concern at this stage is to ensure that it is possible for a judicial review to take place. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State and the Governor do not need to give any reasons, and the matter cannot be questioned in court. That is wrong. I am trying to put right the appeal point. We tried at an earlier stage to put right both points.
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, in moving new clause 2, it is his intention effectively to repeal the provision in clause 1(5) which would exclude decisions which have been taken in the exercise discretion from liability to be questioned in a court? On the face of it, it seems that the new clause would achieve that result. Is that the hon. Gentleman's intention?
  Mr. Darling: Indeed it is. I am not too proud to say that I took a leaf out of the hon. Gentleman's book. In Committee he attempted a similar exercise with about as much success as I anticipate achieving this evening. The obvious criticism that the Government will make is that I am breaking new ground, but all I am doing is following the 1981 Act, which sets out as a general proposition that no reasons will be given and no challenges made. That excludes the sort of appeal about which I spoke earlier. It goes on to state that nothing in the Act could possibly exclude the question of judicial review. If any matter comes before the courts, those acting for the Home Office may well say that, if Parliament had intended there to be an appeal, it would have followed the same model as the 1981 Act, which this Bill does not. That is why it is so important that Parliament leaves the courts in no doubt that we do not want to exclude the possibility of reviewing an administrative decision.
  In my experience, if administrative decisions are not subject to review, it creates an injustice and tends to make for bad decision making. We have many examples of that. With the best will in the world, people who make administrative decisions tend to make better ones if they think that they may be held to account and questioned at the end of the day. Obviously the Government know that the scheme has drawbacks and flaws. They have been touched on, particularly by Tory Members, or at least by those who are making constructive suggestions on the Bill. Obviously those who will make the decisions are aware that they may run into difficulty. It was understandable that those who put together the initial drafts—I expect that they were administrators themselves—were keen to exclude any possibility of appeal. I am sure that many who take administrative decisions, if left to to their own devices, would like to exclude appeal in a wide range of Bills.
  It would be wrong if we were to agree with any idea that judicial review should be excluded. Judicial review would improve the Bill and it would not in any way undermine the intention behind the Bill. Indeed, that is not the purpose of the new clause. It would make for better administration, and it would certainly get round the obvious injustice where someone believes that something has gone wrong for example, in the allocation of the points system, yet can do absolutely nothing about it. We have talked about the resentment that the scheme will create, which is undeniable, but a greater injustice and resentment will be caused if individuals feel that they cannot air a grievance either here or in Hong Kong.
  Mr. Marlow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he has already covered this point, but I had to leave the Chamber, as one does from time to time. Will he make it clear—no doubt he is seduced by what he reads in the opinion polls—whether, if there were a Labour Government, they would introduce judicial review into this Bill?
  Mr. Darling: I do not think that we would have any difficulty in introducing the possibility of judicial review into any administrative decisions. We may have something to say about that before too long.
  Mr. Marlow: Is that the hon. Gentleman's intention?
  Mr. Darling: One advantage of having passed new clause 12 is that we shall have an opportunity to review how the Bill works. I cannot give any commitment about what legislation we are proposing. It will depend on what the circumstances allow.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: If I may finish the point, I shall certainly—
  Mr. Lloyd: I am trying to be helpful.
  Mr. Darling: I am sure that the Minister is trying to be helpful. If the opportunity presents itself, I cannot see why we would not want to introduce judicial review as a safeguard. It is an important point of principle as well as one which would improve the Bill.
  Mr. Lloyd: The question is not whether a Labour Government would make judicial review available under the Bill. It is available. It is just that clause 1(5) states categorically that judicial review will not be available where the Governor or the Secretary of State is exercising a discretion. For the rest of the Bill, judicial review is available, as it always is in every Bill.
  Mr. Darling: I thought that the Minister was going to be helpful, but he was simply getting his oar in early. I am coming to that argument. The Minister wrote to me on the subject and I shall deal with it.
  To complete the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), we have already made it clear that, as any incoming Government would do, we shall see how things are working generally, and this provision will be no different.
  In a memorandum which the Minister circulated, he put the Government's view, which is that nothing in the Bill excludes the jurisdiction of the courts from carrying out a judicial review. Therefore, I cannot see why he should object to new clause 2, which makes that explicit rather than leaving interpretation to a memorandum or statements from the Dispatch Box which have absolutely no bearing on any judicial determination.
  Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's case. It seems from the wording of the new clause that it would override, or be in conflict with, clause 1(5). If it would not, and is merely asserting that on anything other than discretionary matters, the conduct of the Governor's responsibilities under the Bill and the Orders in Council will be a subject of judicial review, there is little between us.
  Mr. Darling: Discretionary decisions are not subject to judicial review anywhere so long as the person exercising
  334
  the discretion carries out his normal duties in reaching the decision. There is no difference between us on that. The new clause would do exactly the same as section 44(3) of the 1981 Act. It would make it clear beyond doubt, so that no judge would have any difficulty with the point, that it is not intended to exclude the possibility of judicial review where the circumstances warranted it. That is the only difference between us. New clause 2 follows the pattern of the 1981 Act.
  I accept that ministerial discretion cannot normally be subject to judicial review unless the Minister considers matters which he has no business to consider or fails to look at all the matters at which he should look. That is well settled. I see no difficulty about that. I read the Minister's letter and explanatory memorandum, and there is a difference between us. I am not convinced by them, which is why I am introducing the new clause.
  Mr. Maclennan: The trouble is that the new clause does not follow the language of the 1981 Act but goes wider. The 1981 Act deals with rights, whereas the new clause deals with the operation of any provisions of the Bill. That would have the effect of repealing the effectiveness of clause 1(5), which is why I asked whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.
  Mr. Darling: I must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention. For the avoidance of doubt, may I say that the effect of the new clause would be to qualify clause 1(5) to make it clear that clause 1(5) would not fetter the discretion of the court to review any decisions made under the Act, as it will become. I am willing to negotiate on the words and the exact language, but I fear that that is not the difficulty. The Government do not like the intention behind the new clause. This is not a grammatical argument so much as one of substance.
  Mr. Adley: To resolve the misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), may I suggest that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central might like to look at the four amendments which I have tabled which attempt to achieve the same objective as his new clause, but do so more simply by deleting the last sentence of the clause? If the hon. Gentleman would like to take over my amendments, I am happy to let him do so.
  Mr. Darling: Exactly that approach was adopted by the Opposition in Committee. We tried another way of achieving the same result. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are certain restrictions on us on Report, and it was necessary to make certain adjustments to accommodate other matters. With respect, I do not think that that is the problem. The problem is that the Government do not like the idea. I dare say that, when the Minister replies, the hon. Gentleman's suggestions will receive no more encouragement than my new clause.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: May I progress a little? I do not want to get bogged down—
  Mr. Marlow: I confess that I am not a lawyer and am not au fait with what judicial review is, what the courts can do and so on. Will the hon. Gentleman answer a clear question? If a Hong Kong citizen sought a passport through the quota system and was aggrieved at not

  335
  obtaining one as a result of administrative discretion, would the hon. Gentleman's amendment allow him to take the matter before the courts?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Darling: Only if the aggrieved person could show that the person who exercised discretion had considered matters that he should not have considered or took into account extraneous considerations. If the person who exercises discretion, the Governor, followed the points system and allocated the points in exactly the way in which he was supposed to do under the scheme, there could be no appeal. The appeal would come into play only if the aggrieved person could show that the Governor had, for example, taken into account something that had nothing to do with the case. Under the Bill or any other provision, he is not empowered to take into account extraneous factors.
  The new clause would not have the effect of granting a common right of appeal. There is nothing new about judicial review. It is a well established branch of the law of this country and, indeed, many others. It is a narrow mechanism that enables courts to put right administrative decisions where things have gone wrong or the administrator has done something that he was not entitled to do. If anyone thinks that judicial review is a mechanism simply to have a case heard anew or considered by someone else, he or she will be disappointed. That is not the intention.
  I have outlined the intention of the new clause as comprehensively as possible. I think and hope that I have demonstrated the need for it. Whatever other drawbacks the Bill may have, it is essential that the mechanisms that it sets up are subject to review. If the difference between us and the Government had been one of language or the exact words used, I should be more than happy to come and go. However, that is not the difficulty.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sorry to keep interrupting. I want to understand what he is getting at because I feel that there is not a great distance between us. I have reflected on what he said to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He appears to believe that any discretionary act of a Minister or public official is not subject to judicial review in the normal way. My understanding is that any act is subject to judicial review, discretionary of otherwise, unless it is specifically excluded, as in clause 1(5). The new clause appears to contradict clause 1(5) on discretionary decisions. If the hon. Gentleman does not intend that the new clause should apply to discretionary decisions, I could not accept it, no matter how willing I were, because it would conflict with what he seems happy to keep in the Bill. We appear to differ on the status of a discretionary decision when there is no specific exclusion of its consideration by a court in the relevant legislation.
  Mr. Darling: My new clause would not contradict clause 1(5). It is a qualification of it or addition to it. It makes it clear that nothing in the Bill precludes the possibility of courts judicially reviewing decisions. I made it clear in response to an earlier—[Interruption.] I shall deal with that point later. It is difficult to deal with points made from a sedentary position, but I shall do my best.
  336
  My new clause is an addition to clause 1(5). As I said, it has the same effect as that of section 44(3) of the 1981 Act. The new clause makes it clear that, no matter what is said at an earlier stage, nothing will prevent a court from considering the proceedings. The new clause is an addition to clause 1(5); it take nothing away from it. The mischief that it seeks to correct is that, as I read it, clause 1(5) would exclude judicial review. I know that the Minister takes a different view on that. The object of the exercise is to make it clear that courts can judicially review the proceedings.
  In Committee, we tried several other approaches. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he does not understand and that he is willing to come and go. I rather suspect that he does not want the possibility of review. If I am wrong on that, I invite him to demonstrate to the House how it would be possible under the terms of the clause to carry out judicial review of any decision made under it.
  My new clause is a safeguard and an addition to the Bill. It would be beneficial to the Bill as a whole because it would make it possible beyond peradventure to raise the matter later in court if there were any doubt in a preliminary court. If that is not possible, it will cause great dissatisfaction as well as great injustice.
  In conclusion—
  Sir Alan Glyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I really should conclude, but since the hon. Gentleman has now got to his feet, I shall give way to him.
  Sir Alan Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to appeals on a point of law, on a point of fact, or both?
  Mr. Darling: Judicial review is not a point of law as such. It is exercised simply to consider as a matter of fact whether the Governor took into account the matters that he should have considered or—as I have said many times now—matters which he should not have considered. It is fairly straightforward. It is a safeguard and an addition to the Bill.
  In conclusion—this time I mean it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I should have no objection if the Minister accepted the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), because I attempted exactly the same exercise in Committee. However, I fear that the hon. Member for Christchurch may be unsuccessful.
  Mr. Adley: After the battle of Britain, Winston Churchill said,
  "Never has so much been owed by so many to so few."
  I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I have had a long, friendly and courteous relationship, that as a result of the brevity of his response to the debate on new clause 12, never in a parliamentary debate has so little been said so quickly to so many. It is unfortunate that, as he implied, he has been left to pick up the bits of what we might call the Foreign Office end of the debate. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), was not here at the beginning of the previous debate and he is not here now. I hope that some of the points that were made will be considered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department does not reply to them.

  337
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said in his discussion with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), we are in danger of creating a lawyers' paradise. As amendments Nos. 37 to 40 have been selected, if the Opposition would prefer to use them as a vehicle at the end of the debate, I shall be happy for them so to do.
  It might be for the convenience of the House if I read out clause 1(5) both as currently drafted and as it would be amended. As it is drafted, 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 by or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
  That is somewhat draconian.
  My four amendments, Nos, 37 to 40, would amend that subsection to read as follows:
  "The Secretary of State or the Governor shall be required to give reasons for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under the Act."
  That seems nothing more than natural justice. Regardless of what might be thought of the Bill, anyone reading the clause would, I am sure, regard the inclusion in the Bill of the words currently printed to be a denial of natural justice.
  New clause 8, which was not selected, states:
  "The Governor of Hong Kong may, at his discretion, withdraw all or any rights to passport entitlements granted under this Act, and in so doing shall state his reasons."
  That was an attempt to put a negative as well as a positive power in the hands of, ultimately, the Government should
  we wish to reverse any decision if we find that passports have been granted to people who subsequently turn out to be drug dealers, murderers, child molesters, Triad organisers—or heavens knows what. As those people would already have their entitlement to a British passport, that is a situation in which prevention is certainly better than cure.
  Finally, I hope that the proposition contained in subsection 5 will not become the custom of this or any Government. Perhaps it should have been included in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where it would have been a powerful weapon in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was not, and we understand why. Surely if one is considering the relative importance of people's rights as against the poll tax, we should agree in Parliament that people's rights are more important. It is in the spirit of protecting individuals' rights that I move my amendments.
  Mr. Maclennan: The debate has become somewhat arcane with its discussion of the alternative language that might be used to ensure that judicial review is open to those who feel aggrieved. However, the principle that underlies the range of amendments that have been grouped together, including my amendment No. 49, is extremely important.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), whose amendment No. 18 is in this group, is proposing to establish a right of appeal and seems to be seeking to introduce a system of review that goes far beyond that of judicial review and would nullify the operation of the scheme that the Government have in mind because it would so protract it that the speedy resolution of cases
  338
  would become almost impossible. Any benefit that might flow from the implementation of the scheme would thereby be frittered away.
  That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I doubt whether a full appeal system is possible. I am fortified in that view by representations that we have received from Hong Kong, all of which suggested that if the scheme is to have the effect that the Government would wish, which is to restore confidence to the commercial community and to stop the haemorrhage from Hong Kong of important and significant citizens, it must be up and running quickly. Therefore, I treat the right hon. Gentleman's amendment as essentially a wrecking one.
  However, the arguments about the alternative approaches, which seek to allow and to secure some form of judicial review by amending the Bill, are of a different order. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, they are intended to be constructive and to ensure that grievances that may perfectly understandably arise about the operation of the scheme are removed by reference to the courts for judicial review.
  From the beginning of this discussion in Committee, the Minister has said that the Government's view is that judicial review is available to an aggrieved person except where clause 1(5) rules it out—that is, where the Secretary of State or the Governor are acting in the pursuance of their discretion and where the matter relates to a decision that was taken in their exercise of that discretion. I understand why the Minister wishes to exclude those discretionary decisions from judicial review.
  The consequence of the alternatives would be to substitute the judgment of the court in the place of that of the Governor or the Secretary of State. I cannot think that that would make sense. If there is an element of discretion in the scheme—that is certainly the case—however detailed the points system may be, it will always be necessary to choose between people who have the same number of points. That cannot be handled satisfactorily by a court; it must be handled by a member of the Government who is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that discretion.
  6.45 pm
  Where I have fallen out previously with the Minister—and where I apprehend that I may disagree with him today—is in his belief that there is no scope for specifying a right to judicial review. What the Minister has said about that in debates and in letters has not altered my judgment that the British Nationality Act 1981 was right to secure the right to judicial review in respect of rights conferred by the Act. That is explicit in section 44(3) of the 1981 Act.
  The Minister has sought to distinguish between the 1981 Act and this Bill by saying that the Bill confers no rights, but I submit that it does. It confers a right upon those who are subject to schemes to have their cases properly procedurally handled. I do not believe that the Minister can deny that. Insofar as people have those rights, I believe that they should be entitled to judicial review to ensure that their rights are properly protected.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: On the whole, the Bill does not create rights in the way that the 1981 Act did. But it certainly lays duties on the Secretary of State and the Governor which, under the Bill when it becomes and Act and the Orders in Council that will follow, could be the occasion of judicial

  339
  review if any applicant felt that the Governor or the Secretary of State had not proceeded as they should under the requirements of this Bill.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister is narrowing the difference between us. In what I think he will have to admit is a somewhat imprecise way, he is saying that the Bill does not confer many rights. But the very rights that it does confer will give rise to grievances which should be remediable by access to the courts.
  I think that the Minister is saying that those who are aggrieved have that right and if he believes that they have that right. I cannot understand his steadfast opposition to securing that right in a clause which would run parallel to section 44(3) of the 1981 Act. That must raise questions about whether the Minister believes that clause 1(5), which puts an impediment in the way of judicial review of the discretionary power, could be invoked to stop judicial review in other cases. That matter is sufficiently in doubt to make it important to have the provisions contained in amendment No. 49.
  I do not go along with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. His amendment, which is not couched in the language of the 1981 Act, goes too far in overturning the effect of excluding discretions from judicial review. I have sympathy with the amendment, but it goes further than I consider to be appropriate. I think that it would transfer responsibility for taking discretionary decisions from the Governor and the Secretary of State to the courts. That cannot he an acceptable objective.
  Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill seeks to confer passports on citizens of Hong Kong. Those who have had that benefit will have the right for their children to be accorded passports. There may be some controversy between those issuing passports and parents over which children are entitled to passports. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the decision to exclude or include a particular child should be made by the courts?
  Mr. Maclennan: I am suggesting that in the exercise of the judgments made by the Governor and the Secretary of State and the procedural rule that will be followed in making assessments, issues such as the one raised by the hon. Gentleman should be open to review. It will be a question of whether the procedures have been properly followed. Did the Secretary of State address himself to the proper questions? Did the Governor do so or did he fail to carry out his duty?
  It has been said by some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that it is a constitutional monstrosity to suggest that there is an obligation upon the Secretary of State to register those whom the Governor recommends. It seems that a duty is being imposed upon him. It seems also that the procedure confers a right upon those whose names are put forward to be registered save in the circumstance that the Secretary of State takes the view that they are not of proper character. That is the effect of clause 5.
  If there is that right to be registered, we are talking of a major right, not a minor procedural matter. It would seem that the Bill is conferring a major right. If that right is subject to judicial review, that meets all the legitimate demands that anyone could have for reconsideration of a mistake, if mistake there has been, without opening up the
  340
  full panoply of an appeal system with all the possibilities of delay that that could involve and the rendering nugatory of the effectiveness of the scheme.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on this issue in a previous debate. Clause 5(2) states:
  "A person shall not … be recommended for registration as a British citizen by the Governor of Hong Kong or … by the Secretary of State if the Governor or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State has reason to believe that he is not of good character."
  Where does that dividing line come down? Who should decide, the Governor or the Secretary of State? How does that affect the hon. Gentleman's view of judicial review?
  Mr. Maclennan: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question is germane to the argument about judicial review. Accordingly, I do not propose to take up the matter.
  I may have conveyed to the Minister what it is that I am seeking to achieve. I hope that I have placed upon him the onus of explaining why the Government are reluctant—they have suggested so far that they are opposed to this—to repeat the language of the 1981 Act, which provides a safeguard for people who are aggrieved because there has been some intromission, oversight, error or misdirection by those responsible for the operation of the scheme.
  Mr. Tebbit: I wish to speak to amendment No. 18, about which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), was so scathing. It is extraordinary that a member of the party which was once called the Liberal party should oppose in principle giving people the right of appeal on the basis that that would be a bureaucratic impediment to the swift progress of granting British nationality.
  I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman is so bigoted and partisan as to believe that merely because an amendment gives a right of appeal it must be a wrecking amendment. There could be no better illustration of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman's mind is closed like a clam to any idea that does not originate from Opposition Members. That means that he has a remarkably closed mind to any ideas because so few originate from those who sit around him. There is increasing lonelines on the Bench on which he sits.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland ruminated on why the Government were so reluctant to accept the amendments which he has proposed, those which I proposed and not dissimilar amendments which were tabled and introduced in Committee. I can tell him why the Government are reluctant to do so. The answer is easy to understand. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary does not like this business at all. He wishes that it had never got anywhere near his desk. He has a marked revulsion for the whole darned business. He knows that it is a can of worms and he does not want it to get anywhere near him or his office. He wants to keep it all offshore.
  This is one of the first instances where the granting of nationality has been made an offshore operation. The Home Secretary wants to keep the business in Hong Kong. He is pretty darned sure that some nasty and unfortunate things will happen, and the last thing that he wants is to find that he is responsible for them.
  It is against that background that we are being asked how the Home Secretary will possibly kno better than

  341
  the Governor. How, it is said, could the Home Secretary decide anything here except on evidence which had come to him from Hong Kong? It is argued that that would be the same evidence as that which had been presented to the Governor, and that the Home Secretary would merely be churning out the same old stuff. That would be fine if the Governor were responsible to the House, but there is a pretty thick layer between the House, the Governor and those who will be operating the scheme.
  I think that Hong Kong is a marvellous place. It is a terrific, successful place, but I doubt whether anyone would be able to maintain that it is the one place in the world where the ethics of business stand out as being more reputable than those anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Do not tell us about that.
  Mr. Tebbit: It seems that the hon. Gentleman wants to start a debate about other issues. Perhaps they include the way in which Lord Beswick piloted a nationalisation Bill through Parliament and then got a job. I shall not be tempted down that road.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tebbit: I would greatly enjoy such a debate on another day, because there is much ammunition to be used, and I would have great delight in using some of it. But we are not discussing those issues and I do not want unnaturally to extend the debate. We should focus clearly and firmly on the matters that are under discussion.
  The principal issue in this debate is whether someone who is granted the right to apply for registration as a British citizen under the Bill should have a right to appeal to someone who is directly responsible to this Parliament, which has accorded the right. That is the argument. We are not arguing that the Home Secretary should deal with all the applications himself. Clearly, most aggrieved people would accept that they had not scored on the points standard of the Bill, according to what we assume will be the way in which it is operated.
  I tabled an amendment—unfortunately, it was not accepted—that would have clarified the criteria by taking the Government's own words from their explanatory memorandum and including them in the Bill. I cannot see why the Government do not want to incorporate their views in their legislation. Obviously they do not really approve of them.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps my right hon. Friend should consult my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who explained—when my right hon. Friend was out of the Chamber—that we needed an annual report from the Governor on the facts and progress of the scheme—in case we wanted to change it. Only through delegated legislation in Orders in Council could we do that.
  7 pm
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is completely wrong. He is saying that it would be more convenient legislatively to change the scheme by means of Orders in Council than to do so through primary legislation. That is not an absolute problem; it just takes more time.
  342
  As I know very well, Governments do not like to arrange such debates in prime parliamentary time. They would prefer the whole issue to be swept under the carpet in future, so that we did not have to debate it again. Apart from anything else, it is an extremely divisive issue in the Conservative party. Conservative Back Benchers do not support the Bill; nor, in their heart of hearts do Front Benchers, although they may do so in the Lobbies. It certainly does not have the support of those who voted for us at the general election on the clear understanding that no such legislation would be presented.
  I am not too bothered by my hon. Friend's objections. If the Government ase to break electoral commitments, they should do so in public, so that the electors know that undertakings have been breached. An even more puzzling question is whether my hon. Friend has any better reason than was given in Committee for not giving the right of appeal. I accept that the Bill should contain the extraordinary little clause that effectively seeks to exclude the courts from any review of their operations: some Conservative Members do not want the courts to be involved, as it would raise too many issues about how British citizenship and passports are handed out. Surely, however, my hon. Friends will not say that in no circumstances should a citizen in Hong Kong have any right to come to a Minister directly responsible to Parliament with an appeal against what has been done.
  Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, one of the great departures of the Bill is the offshore award of British citizenship. The person awarding that citizenship will effectively be the Governor of Hong Kong. I understand that my right hon. Friend's amendment hopes to give that final power on appeal back to the people who have been democratically elected to represent the people of this country—hon. Members.
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not the Governor's legislation, but the Secretary of State's legislation: it is the legislation of the House of Commons. At the end of the day, it is to the House, through the Secretary of State, that the appeal should be made. How can it be held that the Secretary of State, having put into commission the granting of citizenship—surely one of the most important acts to be conducted by a Government—could then wash his hands of it, and say that he does not want to know and that he will intervene only if citizenship is granted to someone who he believes is not of a fit or proper character?
  If someone applies to be registered for British citizenship and is refused, and someone else's application is preferred—perhaps in breach of the rules—will the Secretary of State still say that he does not want to know? Will he say that it is too difficult, and that he does not want to accept responsibility for it?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the Minister is going to say that he does want the responsibility.
  Mr. Lloyd: If a selection were made in breach of the rules, it would be a matter for judicial review, and there would be access to the courts, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I do not think that my right hon. Friend was in the Chamber at the

  343
  time. If he has read the Committee proceedings—as he said he has—he will know that that was made clear several times.
  Mr. Tebbit: Within the rules there is enormous discretion. If the Minister reads the rules of the memorandum that I sought to include in the Bill, he will see that not everything is cut and dried.
  Who will decide whether one business man is more successful and entrepreneurial than another? Is there a set of rules, or will a subjective judgment be made? Will a business man who has made £50 million starting from £500,000 be good enough to get in, whereas someone who has made only £25 million starting from £1 million will not be? Obviously, the decision will be discretionary, judgmental and subjective.
  If the decision is to be based on someone's judgment, should it be that of a Minister of the Crown or that of a civil servant in Hong Kong? Is my hon. Friend saying that that subjective judgment should be exercised by someone who is not directly responsible to the House?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The judgment will be based on the value of the individual to Hong Kong. In those circumstances, who better to make that judgment than the Governor of Hong Kong, acting within the rules laid down by the House?
  My right hon. Friend has slid off the point that I answered. He referred to a breach of the rules laid down by the House; I said that, in those circumstances, a judicial review would be available, and I hope that he will accept that.
  Mr. Tebbit: I will accept that, if it can be established that a decision is in breach of the rules. A judicial review is not the cheapest or the easiest way to bring proceedings. Why not offer a cheaper and easier form of appeal?
  My hon. Friend the Minister also conceded my point that in many cases passports will be granted on no more than the view of a group of people as to who are the most valuable citizens in Hong Kong.
  Let us imagine what would be said in the House if we proposed to operate such a system here, judging people on the basis of their value to the economy. An official who was not even a Minister could decide to front an invaluable privilege. There would be no right of appeal: a person could not go to judicial review and say that the Governor had made a wrong assessment of his value to the economy of Hong Kong. He will have no right of appeal. The Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State say, "Hard luck. Much better that that sort of mess is kept out of our office and is kept over there in Hong Kong. We give up responsibility and we deny any responsibility to the House of Commons."
  Mr. Wells: Has my right hon. Friend read the key entrepreneur section which says:
  "The Governor would invite those whom he considered might be qualified under this scheme to submit an application".
  It is entirely in the Governor's right to decide that. If an aggrieved person believed that the Goverment had not exercised that judgment correctly, there would be no question of judicial review. A small cabal—the elite who rule Hong Kong—would decide who should have British citizenship; citizenship which belongs to Britain through the House.
  Mr. Tebbit: As my hon. Friend says, that is how it would operate. We all know that, wherever there is a ruling commercial elite who like to have things their own way, there are outsiders. If one went to the CBI and asked who were the deserving entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom, it would probably omit from its list a great many people who would feel that they had been wrongfully omitted. The CBI would upset a lot of people. Any establishment will do that.
  We are well aware of the way in which the ranks close in establishments if somebody should be so unwise as to criticise it—[Interruption.] I hasten to say that I speak from no experience of such things, but I have heard that it happens now and again. I have even heard that it happens to hon. Members who have committed such a terrible offence as working for Mr. Rupert Murdoch. They get slung off the Opposition Front Bench for doing so. That is the sort of way in which people can upset the establishment.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassettlaw): The right hon. Gentleman will never be Sir Norman now.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman should be careful. He may never reach the Front Bench the way he is carrying on.
  Mr. Ashton: I have been on it and come off it.
  Mr. Tebbit: Indeed.
  The serious point that I am making is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, that to get on to that key entrepreneurs list a person's face must fit with the establishment of Hong Kong, not with the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] One of my more vulgar Back-Bench colleagues whom I shall not name says, "or his cheque book". Perish the thought that such a thing could happen in a place like Hong Kong. The idea that people might be able to buy a passport in Hong Kong is outrageous. I am amazed that one of my colleagues could suggest it. I would not have been surprised if such a suggestion had come from the vulgar mob on the Opposition Benches, but for one of my hon. Friends to suggest it—that might be getting somewhere near the truth of the matter. It just might be that there are people in Hong Kong, perfectly successful and honest men, who would deserve the award of citizenship, whose faces do not fit. What will they do?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is eager to tell me.
  Mr. Lloyd: What the key entrepreneurs will have to do is to meet the criteria that will be laid down by the House in the Order in Council.
  Mr. Tebbit: I have been in the business of drawing up legislation for long enough not to fall for that guff.
  Sir Peter Blaker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not want to mislead the House. I do not know whether he has recently looked at the section on the key entrepreneur. He is giving the impression that only those key entrepreneurs who are invited by the Governor to make an application will be eligible, but that is plainly not true. The document says:
  "It would be open to others who wished to be considered in this category to indicate their interest on an application

  345
  form … Other potential recipients who did not take that initiative might be identified from information set out on their forms when they applied".
  May we have the whole picture, not just part of it?
  Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that that is right. If the National Front were to advertise for an administrative officer, it would probably put at the bottom of the page that it was an equal opportunities employer. We can believe that if we wish. It does not matter whether a person is invited to apply by the Governor or not. His face has to fit. If it does not fit well enough to receive an invitation, I doubt whether it would fit well enough to win on an application without an invitation.
  Even if we were to believe that on 99 occasions out of 100 all would go well, we must concede that there is a possibility—not even a probability—that there would be a miscarriage of justice. We know that there would be no appeal against that and no way in which the consequences of how the legislation is drawn up could arrive on the desk of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for taking that view. If I were the Home Secretary with this dog's dinner of a Bill, I would be taking the same view. I would want to keep it offshore if I could.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Marlow: In a previous intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the measure is about providing citizenship for people in Hong Kong so that they might be constrained to stay in Hong Kong. But I put it to my right hon. Friend that what we are doing is providing people with British citizenship. In that case, is it right that the Secretary of State should have no influence on whether there should be an appeal?
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend makes the essential point. I cannot imagine why the official Opposition are so willing to let the Government get away with it. However, there is sometimes a conspiracy between the Front Benches. It is not unknown. Even when the Opposition Front Bench team opposes legislation, it may not oppose it enough to stop it getting through. It may oppose it only for show, so that it can say that it opposed it, but at the same time let it through.
  I am amazed that the Opposition, including the so-called Liberals, bitterly oppose, in the way that they seem to, granting a right of appeal to the Home Secretary on the issue of British citizenship. It is amazing that they are content to leave that in the hands of the Governor of Hong Kong and his officials.
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman's concern for the injustices of the Bill would carry much greater weight if he had a scheme to offer hope to those who will be threatened in 1997 by an oppressive Government in Peking, the responsibility for whom, if his policies were carried out, he would wash his hands of. The British Government would simply turn their back. He has shown no willingness to support the Liberal Democrats' policy that those who have been granted British dependent territories citizen passports should be entitled as of right to come to Britain, in which case there would be none of these review procedures.
  Mr. Tebbit: I have made no secret of the fact that I oppose the Bill on two grounds. First, it is a breach of the Government's commitment not to allow further large-scale immigration into Britain. The first obligation of a Member of Parliament is to his constituents here. That is the prime obligation.
  Mr. Rogers: Why does the right hon. Gentleman take other jobs, then?
  Mr. Tebbit: For exactly the same reason as the deputy leader of the Labour party takes other jobs. If hon. Members want to come to my constituency and tell my constituents that I have not been looking after their interests, they will have to explain why my majority has risen from 4,000 to 18,000 in the past 10 years. That may be the view of ignorant people, but it is not the view of the people whom I look after.
  Let us return to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The second reason why I oppose the Bill is also the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch opposes it: it will not benefit the people of Hong Kong. It will not make matters better there but will make them worse. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland may take a different view from me, but he should not imply that having a different view from him is a matter of dishonour, because experience has shown that it is not.
  Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary got any better explanation than the one he put forward in Committee, as to why the House should allow the Home Secretary—I am not speaking of my right hon. and learned Friend personally but of his office—to shuffle off the obligation and thus ensure that the responsibility will never come back to land on his desk, once the House has given its consent to the Bill?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am afraid that I shall have to spend a little more time replying to this debate than I did to the last one as it is important and there are genuine misunderstandings and worries on the issue.
  In Committee we spent a good deal of time discussing how decisions taken under the Bill might be reviewed. Clearly that was a matter of genuine concern, and I appreciate how strongly the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) felt about it, and I also find, to my interest, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is numbered among those who are concerned.
  In Committee, and in letters which I sent afterwards, I sought to explain the background to clause 1(5) and the extent of its effect. Therefore, I wrote to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central remarked, setting out the sort of decision which the Government thought that the courts would be likely to regard as reviewable and those which seemed likely not be reviewable as a result of clause 1(5). I must point out again to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that new clause 2 would contradict clause 1(5) and could not sit alongside it in the same Bill.
  As I made clear in Committee, ultimately it will be not for the Governor or for the Home Secretary but for the courts to decide what is reviewable, having regard to the provisions of the legislation. I wrote to the hon. Member

  347
  for Caithness and Sutherland about the case of a person seeking registration as a spouse under schedule 2 who was rejected on grounds of ineligibility.
  Let me emphasise once again what I said in Committee. The exemptions in clause 1(5) from having to give reasons and from appeal and judicial review relate only to discretionary decisions. It is in the nature of such decisions that they often involve the exercise of judgment about matters which might be finely balanced, and where there might be no clear right or wrong answer. If I understood correctly the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Caithness and Sutherland, they had no argument with me or with the Government on that score; their argument is about how we present the matter in the Bill.
  Mr. Darling: I am not sure that that accurately represents our view. I said that I thought that there were circumstances in which ministerial discretion could be challenged by involving judicial review under the present law. I make no bones about it: my new clause would qualify clause 1(5) so that, if it were appropriate to do so, and if an aggrieved person had grounds to do so, he or she could challenge such discretion. on occasion the Minister might purport to use discretion but consider matters that he had no business to consider for any reason. I am glad that the Minister has said clearly that clause 1(5) would make such a discretionary decision unchallengeable, no matter now manifestly unjust it was.
  Mr. Lloyd: The court would decide whether it was a matter of discretion. I think that in the examples that the hon. Gentleman was trying to think of, and was alluding to earlier, it would be a question of the circumstances in which discretion was applied rather than a question of discretion. The courts will have to determine whether that is a matter for them to review or not. There is nothing in clause 1(5) which provides for discretionary decisions because the intention and effect of the clause are similar to a provision which has formed part of our nationality law for the past 40 years. It is included in black and white, in section 26 of the British Nationality Act 1948, and more recently in section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Therefore, the amendments would depart from a principle that has been a long-standing feature of nationality law under successive Governments.
  The need for exemption is particularly pressing in this Bill because of the competitive nature of the scheme, which has a ceiling of 50,000 places, and because of the expected high proportion of unsuccessful applications.
  If a person felt that a discretionary decision had deprived him of selection, often the decision could be meaningfully reviewed only if the courts also considered the relative claims of other people with whom the applicant had been competing. That would not be practicable. Even if it was, it would result merely in the substitution of one opinion for another. That must be the case when it is not simply a question of getting enough points to reach a pass mark which entitles people to British citizenship. It is a question of getting more points than other people. By securing a place, a person will deny that place to someone else. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland recognised that that was so.
  Mr. Adley: I heard what my hon. Friend said about those sections of existing immigration law which contain phrases or clauses similar to clause 1(5). Does he accept that in those instances British Ministers are answerable to
  348
  Members of Parliament? What similar fallback position does he envisage for individuals in Hong Kong? Are he and his ministerial colleagues at the Home Office prepared to countenance hon. Members taking up cases brought to their attention with Ministers here in the same way that we mention cases involving our constituents?
  Mr. Lloyd: The Home Secretary is not answerable for matters of discretion under nationality law. He makes his decision on the information available, and he is required to give no reasons. Obviously he would listen and receive letters dealing with the cases of people who might have applied for British citizenship, but there is no obligation on him to give reasons for his decision. That is absolutely clear under the present legislation. The Bill requires that the final granting of British citizenship belongs to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and he would have to satisfy himself of the suitability of the applicant to be a British citizen. For that reason, there will be Home Office officials in Hong Kong to consider the recommendations made by the Governor to ensure that they are suitable people on whose behalf my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should exercise the discretion which remains with him.
  Mr. Marlow: As has been said from a sedentary position, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would have a negative power. If the Governor were to say to him, "Thou shalt have a certain person as a British citizen," and my right hon. and learned Friend had information that that person would be unsuitable for the United Kingdom, then, as we have discussed before. he would be able to say that the person could not come into the country. But let us suppose that someone who was eminently suitable for citizenship but who for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford—cliques and cabals in Hong Kong—was not allocated one of the 50,000 British citizenships contacted an hon. Member, who then got in touch with the Home Secretary. In those circumstances, what would my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary be able to do about it, given the way that the Bill is drafted?
  Mr. Lloyd: There are many people in Hong Kong who are suitable in that sense to be British citizens. However, the selection scheme that the House will eventually provide will be the means by which the Governor will choose those people who, because of their value to Hong Kong, as well as being eminently suitable to be British citizens, will be included among the 50,000.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: During my visit to Hong Kong, I heard two different views about the position if individuals wanted to appeal. I was told by a civil servant that every individual had the right to petition the Governor personally. When I asked the Governor about that, he was less inclined to accept that that was an appeal route. Do people have the right to petition the Governor under the existing rules? If they have that right, should the Governor not be required to provide reasons for his refusal?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not know the details. I believe that there is a tradition whereby people can approach the Governor, but it is no substitute for the kind of appeal system that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind. The

  349
  objective process, as provided for in the Bill, will be laid down in Orders in Council. The Governor will have much less discretion than is assumed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford.
  Mr. Madden: I accept that the Secretary of State will not be obliged to give reasons for his refusal to grant British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981, but the custom and practice over some years has been that when hon. Members, or those in another place, made representations to the Secretary of State and asked for explanations as to why an application had been refused the Secretary of State offered an explanation that enabled hon. Members to make further inquiries. Will that practice not continue under the new legislation?
  Mr. Lloyd: On some occasions my right hon. and learned Friend has done that; on other occasions he has not. He has the discretion to decide whether it would be right for him to give information. My right hon. and learned Friend always tries to be as helpful as he possibly can. When reaching his conclusion, he would seek to take into account any representations that were made to him. We are talking, however, about giving reasons and explanations. Home Secretaries in successive Governments have frequently not done so; their judgment in particular cases was that it would not be helpful.
  Arguments similar to those that I have advanced relating to appeals apply to the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley): that the Governor or the Secretary of State should be required to give the reasons for a discretionary decision. Given the large number of decisions that will need to be taken about the detailed criteria for the scheme—for example, about the weight, in terms of points, to be given to different qualifications—a requirement to give reasons in all cases would be extraordinarily difficult to work and would not be very meaningful unless one knew what the reasons were in every other case.
  This is a competitive exercise. I have stressed that the exemption in clause 1 will apply only to discretionary decisions. Anyone who reads the clause will see that it applies only to discretionary decisions. All other aspects of the selection and registration process will fall outside the scope of the exemption and, therefore, will be within the purview of the courts.
  The inclusion of a provision in the Bill stating that explicitly is unnecessary. I know, however, that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland feels passionately about the matter. As I promised in Committee, I have thought long and hard about including words to reassure him. I do not believe that it is good practice to overload legislation with redundant clauses, but in this case I should have been willing to do so if it would have had no other effect than to make the Bill slightly longer. I am afraid, however, that I had to conclude not merely that the addition would be unnecessary but that it would be undesirable as it could raise doubts about the powers of the courts in relation to other statutes.
  There is no better illustration of that than the hon. Gentleman's deep concern and the anxieties that have been expressed both this evening and in Committee, which spring from the fact that the words of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which he wishes to be inserted in
  350
  the Bill, already appear in the 1981 Act. The inclusion of section 44(3) in the 1981 Act—of doubtful necessity even then—has led some right hon. and hon. Members to assume that the courts cannot review actions taken under the statute unless the statute specifically allows them to do so. The House should not perpetuate that assumption, as it would if it were to accept the amendment. Should we continue to do that from time to time in new legislation—to reassure a particularly forceful hon. Member when he expresses a fiercely held worry—we would begin to raise doubts as to the extent of the courts' competence to review cases without specific legislative authority.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for the detailed way in which he is seeking to answer my point. Does he believe, however, that the presence of section 44(3) in the British Nationality Act 1981 leads to doubt about whether judicial review exists? It was included in the Act for the avoidance of doubt. It should be included in this Bill for the same reason.
  Mr. Lloyd: To be fair, section 44(3) of the 1981 Act was drafted a decade ago, when this area of the law was less well developed than it is now. The courts are vigorous in asserting their right to review decisions taken by public bodies under powers conferred by Act of Parliament. To include similar words in this Bill would not help. They would add to the damage that the appearance of those words in the 1981 Act has retrospectively caused. I do not want that area of doubt to continue.
  The fact that the hon. Gentleman is doubtful and believes that without those words there can be no judicial review leads me to point out to him that there are myriad other Acts on the statute book of which the same could be said; they are no different. There can be a judicial review under these Acts just as, under this Bill, there is the possibility of judicial review, without the words that the hon. Gentleman wants to include. If from time to time we were to include those words in various Acts, it would be possible to argue that if another Act did not contain them it was not intended by Parliament that there should be judicial review.
  The fact that judicial review is available is demonstrated by the Immigration Act 1971–10 years before the British Nationality Act 1981—under which hundreds of challenges by way of judicial review are made every year, even though the Act contains no express provision that confers jurisdiction on the courts to consider such challenges. In the case of the Bill, that includes all aspects of its operation, except those discretionary decisions which clause 1(5) explicitly exempts.
  Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend make it clear whether or not there will be the possibility of judicial review arising out of a decision by the Governor within the key entrepreneurs section, were someone to believe that, although he was a key entrepreneur in the top 500, he had not been selected?
  Mr. Lloyd: That will be a matter for the courts to determine. I believe that that possibility would not arise, unless the individual could show that the criteria laid down by the House had not been followed. The Governor is required to abide by the rules that we lay down, both in this Bill and, more particularly in the case of the selection scheme, in Orders in Council.
  Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the intention of the legislation is that there should not be judicial review of the Governor's decision as to whether or not a man is one of the top 500 entrepreneurs in Hong Kong? Is that right?
  Mr. Lloyd: Where there are elements of discretion that belong either to the Governor or to the Secretary of State, the intention is that that should not be a matter of judicial review. However, both the Governor and the Home Secretary are under a duty to abide by the law that is laid down in the Bill, if it becomes an Act, and by the rules and regulations that will appear in Orders in Council. It would be for the courts to decide whether the House had given an element of discretion to the Governor, or whether he had not followed the procedures laid down by the House.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is being very helpful. He is describing how it is not the intention of the Government to allow judicial review. The Bill is constructed in a way that is deliberately designed to limit or exclude the courts. My hon. Friend says that the only occasion on which judicial review could arise is where it could be shown that the Governor had not complied with the criteria set down in the legislation.
  We cannot yet know what the legislation will look like, but if right hon. and hon. Members will refer to page 2079 of the amendment paper they will see what the Government's explanatory memorandum says about the criteria. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that it would he unsurprising if they were the criteria published by a masonic lodge for membership. The idea that a court would take the view that the Governor had exercised his discretion in a way no reasonable man could have done—and that is the test in a judicial review—in deciding between applicant No. 500 and applicant No. 501 is totally absurd.
  Mr. Lloyd: We shall come in due time to the Orders in Council, which will lay down the criteria. My right hon. Friend should not assume in too much detail what those criteria will be. We have done our best in the explanatory paper to show what our thinking is, but the usefulness of the Report and Committee stages is that they enable points to be made that we can bear in mind when preparing the Orders in Council that are to be brought before the House.
  My right hon. Friend is saying that, where it is a matter of discretion under the law and under the Orders in Council, it cannot be reviewed by the courts, but where it is a matter of following requirements laid down by the Bill, or by the Orders in Council, it will be open to review.
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend the Minister makes it plain that there will be no possibility, in his judgment, of appeal. As to the Orders in Council, why did not my hon. Friend follow the example that I set some years ago, of publishing in draft form the statutory instrument, so that the House could consider it while debating the Bill on Report? There is no reason why that could not have been done in this case. It would have made for a more informed debate, and we would not have the muddle over how the scheme would operate when it came to the point. My hon. Friend the Minister asks the House to pass the Bill before it can see what kind of statutory instrument he brings forward.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not asking the House to pass a statutory instrument that has yet to be brought forward.
  352
  I have covered most of the points made in debate except those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Minister says that the guts of the thing will come forward in the statutory instrument, and to a certain extent we must take that on trust. My understanding of a statutory instrument is that one either accepts the whole of it or gets rid of the whole of it, and that it is not amendable. Is my hon. Friend proposing a new form of statutory instrument?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not. I am saying that the Report stage gives plenty of opportunity for my hon. Friend to say what he would and would not like to see in the Bill.
  I return to amendment No. 18, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and others of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend has made half my remarks for me. He is right that a major reason why there should not be an appeal to the Home Secretary is that the Governor will have the information and will be running the scheme according to the means laid down by the House. Therefore, the information available to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be the same as that available to the Governor—it would have come from Hong Kong.
  As the criteria are designed to determine those who are most valuable to Hong Kong, my right hon. Friend is right in thinking that the assessment will be more effectively and efficiently made by the Governor. However, he retains to himself the final determination of whether someone should be registered as a British citizen. He will make up his mind on the person's suitability to be a British citizen, though the recommended person will come forward on the Governor's evaluation of his or her value to Hong Kong, the Governor having observed the process that we have set down for him.
  No doubt a great many people will apply, and it would be impracticable for my right hon. and learned Friend to scrutinise not just the appeals but the merits of all who had been successful in gaining a recommendation. As there is a top limit on the numbers, if my right hon. and learned Friend allows some appeals, others would have to drop out because of the upper limit set by the House. That would create enormous difficulties, as well as a huge backlog of cases. None of them could be decided until my right hon. and learned Friend had, in effect, reviewed them all. As the need in Hong Kong is for the reassurance that the Bill can give and for it to take effect quickly, it would be wholly counter-productive for the right of appeal to be enacted in the Bill. For that reason, my right hon. Friend's amendment must be rejected.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Tebbit: First, may I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time without the leave of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The leave of the House is denied.
  Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not seeking to address the House again on the issues but endeavouring to establish whether the House may vote

  353
  on amendment No. 18. I know that it would come not at this moment, but at the appropriate point in the consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall have to give consideration to what happens to intermediate amendments, as that may have an influence on the Chair's judgment about the propriety of such a Division. I will consider the matter at the appropriate time, when I shall bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. Marlow: Two issues still concern me at this stage. The first is the involvement of the courts, as suggested by the Opposition amendment. The second, and more important, is the aspect raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) in his amendment, concerning the involvement by the House at a later stage.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for clarifying his amendment, which would if anything extend the circumstances in which there could be judicial review and court involvement. I am deeply concerned about that. In respect of various measures passed by the House, notably the community charge, we recently discovered that many aggrieved citizens flocked to the courts and sought to make that legislation more difficult to implement.
  If the involvement of the courts is to increase, it is surely possible that many people in Hong Kong will be able to claim not that discretion has been applied unreasonably against them but that in some way, even through the distribution of a notice by post, the matter was incorrectly administered. They might choose to take their argument before the courts to be decided. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central were to persist with his new clause and gain a majority for it, there is a real risk that the intentions behind the legislation could be rendered, to a great extent, unworkable.
  As for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, I offer the following scenario. Let us suppose that, in the exercise of his powers, the Governor of Hong Kong were to award British citizenship to a certain gentleman. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in the exercise of his powers, said that he had no objection and that this was a suitable person to be given a British passport and to come to the United Kingdom; and if the gentleman then came to reside here, perhaps in Chingford or in my constituency, at an early date—despite the intentions of the Bill, which are that he should stay in Hong Kong until 1997; if, as I say, this gentleman took immediate advantage of his citizenship, he might at some subsequent stage receive a communication from a friend or relative still living in Hong Kong who himself had sought to acquire the valuable privilege of British citizenship. The Governor of Hong Kong, exercising his discretion within the rules, or people acting on behalf of the Governor, might, in the view of this friend or relative, have unreasonably denied him the opportunity to which he felt he was entitled to be granted a British passport.
  My consituent might then come to me and say, "Mr. Marlow, there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. The Governor has looked at my friend or relative's application and, because of various circumstances in Hong Kong, has improperly exercised his discretion and refused to grant
  354
  my friend or relative the passport which, knowing British law, knowing you and knowing the fabric of British society, I believe he should have been granted. What, Mr. Marlow, are you going to do on behalf of my friend or relative?"
  I could say, "He is in Hong Kong; it is nothing to do with me." He might say, "Mr. Marlow, it is something to do with you because you are a Member of Parliament and Parliament is responsible for what is happening in Hong Kong." What should I do? Should I write a letter to the Governor of Hong Kong telling him that a constituent of mine has brought me a point to which I have no answer? What status do I have with the Governor of Hong Kong? None at all. If I write to him, what will he say? What will he do? What interest will he have in communicating with me?
  No doubt I would receive a polite, decent reply, full of a great deal of explanation, from the Governor, but that is not my role as a Member of Parliament. I would much rather write to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to learn from him his views on the problem. That is the way parliamentary democracy works; that is the role of a Member of Parliament. So, before we vote on the new clause, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for his views on this conundrum.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided:Ayes 176, Noes 297.

  Division No. 230]

  [7.53 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Adley, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flannery, Martin

  Boateng, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Boyes, Roland

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Carr, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clay, Bob

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Haynes, Frank

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cryer, Bob

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoyle, Doug

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Ingram, Adam

  355

  Janner, Greville

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Redmond, Martin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Reid, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Richardson, Jo

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robertson, George

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Marek, Dr John

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Nellist, Dave

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Brien, William

  Worthington, Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wray, Jimmy

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Prescott, John

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bright, Graham

  Alton, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Ashby, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Benyon, W.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Chope, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Couchman, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  356

  Curry, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Ian

  Eggar, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fallon, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Favell, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fearn, Ronald

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lilley, Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Livsey, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Madel, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorst, John

  Mans, Keith

  Gow, Ian

  Maples, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grist, Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hague, William

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mellor, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hannam, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Harris, David

  Mills, Iain

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Hayward, Robert

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hill, James

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Holt, Richard

  Needham, Richard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Norris, Steve

  Howells, Geraint

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irvine, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rathbone, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhodes James, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Riddick, Graham

  357

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rost, Peter

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trippier, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wallace, James

  Shersby, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whitney, Ray

  Squire, Robin

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sumberg, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM
  'The Secretary of State shall by direction given to the Governor make provision for him to consider applications for asylum in the United Kingdom in respect of any person who, by virtue of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, may be in danger of persecution in Hong Kong after 30th June 1997.'.
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  As I said in Committee, I doubt whether we would be discussing the Bill were it not for the appalling events in Tiananmen square last year, not because there would not have been problems and uncertainties about what will happen in Hong Kong after 1997 but because there is no doubt that the events that we saw on television last year shocked people around the world and understandably led people inside China and Hong Kong to fear for their lives, or at least their safety, if the regime in China is the same after the handing over of the colony in 1997.
  It is all the more surprising that the Bill makes no special provision for those who seek what I might loosely call asylum. We are told that it deals with the special circumstances of Hong Kong, which I understand, but I should have thought that the Government would make some provision to deal with the special circumstances of those who fear persecution or fear for their lives—the usual criteria that are considered for asylum.
  358
  Instead, we are told that the individuals concerned will have to use the normal system for considering applications for asylum, even though it is common ground that there are special circumstances in Hong Kong.
  That is where the problems start. Anyone who has had the slightest contact with the asylum system that we operate will know that our reputation of being a haven for those who fear for their lives can at times be tarnished by the way in which we operate the asylum regime. One has only to consider the case of the 33 people from China who are currently in this country to see one of the difficulties that they face.
  If individuals on the way to this country make the mistake of landing in a third country, the Government's attitude—they would pray in aid the United Nations convention—is that they must make their applications for asylum in that third country. That can be difficult, because the third country may not have the recognised systems and recognised rule of law and due process of law that we have in this country. It could be a country where, to put it bluntly, the system for dealing with asylum may be rudimentary.
  In terms of the United Nations convention, the Government are entitled to say, "We are not prepared to entertain your applications for asylum. You must go to a third country." That is a problem for people who fear persecution in 1997 or thereafter. Because of the special circumstances of Hong Kong, there should be a special system to consider applications for asylum from Hong Kong. A number of people may fear for their safety.
  I am prepared to concede that if an individual arrives in this country claiming asylum, the application is dealt with expeditiously and normally quite fairly, and the outcome is usually satisfactory from the point of view of the applicant. However, it is obvious that, when more than one or two such people arrive—it may be five or six, or 20 or 30—the attitude of the Government, especially the Home Office, changes dramatically.
  We need only look at the position of the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka in the mid-1980s or the Kurdish refugees who came from Turkey last year. The Government pulled down the shutters. In the case of the Kurdish refugees, the Government even sent immigration officers on to the aeroplane, and they clambered over passengers sorting out who was likely to be visiting this country in the normal course of events and who might be seeking asylum. Some asylum seekers did not even get off the aeroplane, so anxious were the Government to avoid what they regarded as a troublesome crisis.
  I make that point because, if things are going badly in 1997, there could well be more than one or two people who fear for their lives or the safety of their families. The Government should set up a special system to deal with Hong Kong. I know that it will be said that there are other areas in the world that are trouble spots and are likely to generate people seeking asylum. That may be, but if we are dealing with the special circumstances of Hong Kong, we should have provisions to deal with people there.
  Had it not been for the events of last year, which must have led people to fear for their lives, I doubt that we would even be discussing anything to do with Hong Kong. Most people in this country would like to think that the people of Hong Kong will be treated fairly and reasonably. I am afraid that, without a special scheme, those people

  359
  will have to take their chances in the general regime and try to find refuge somewhere in the world—perhaps in this country, perhaps elsewhere.
  I understand that the Government will sign an intergovernmental agreement in the next week or two that will radically alter the asylum system in Europe. There will be a common visa system throughout Europe, so that, if an applicant for asylum is refused entry in one EEC country, he will be refused entry for the entire EEC—in effect, the whole of western Europe. If that system is introduced, it will cut the opportunities available to those people who genuinely fear for their lives and their safety. The House should think long and hard before endorsing that system.
  It is obvious that that development will have to be discussed at another time because it would be inappropriate to do so in this fairly narrow debate. It emphasises the point that we need a special system to deal with what are undoubtedly special circumstances. It may be that the problem will not arise and that by 1997 conditions will be radically different. But as we are debating the Bill in the belief that the problems may exist, it seems only right that we should introduce this special system to deal with people who may face a substantial risk to their lives.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Madden: In supporting new clause 3, I refer to a specific case concerning applicants for political asylum from mainland China which I have raised in the House a number of times in recent weeks. I very much regret the fact that the responsible Home Office Minister is absent and that there does not seem to be any other Home Office representative here. Nevertheless, I hope that the Foreign Office Minister can announce the Government's intentions.
  This case arose on Saturday 5 May when 33 mainland Chinese nationals arrived at Heathrow on their way from Panama to Canada, where they hoped to seek political asylum. It was discovered at Heathrow that, although they had valid passports, their visas for Canada were false. The carrier refused to take them on to Canada and they then requested political asylum in the United Kingdom. The immigration service initially treated them as asylum seekers, began interviewing with regard to their claims to asylum and granted them temporary admission to the United Kingdom pending the determination of their claims.
  This is the normal method of handling asylum applications. There is an initial brief interview. The individuals are then admitted temporarily to the United Kingdom while a decision is taken at Home Office headquarters. This decision usually takes several months, during which the individuals can consult lawyers and further information and evidence can be submitted to clarify the basis of their claims for asylum. The individuals are sometimes invited to the Home Office for interview, at which time they can bring their own interpreters and lawyers to help them to explain their claim. This normal method has been applied up to now to all Chinese nationals who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom following the Tiananmen square massacre.
  On Monday 7 May, members of various voluntary groups were contacted to help collect the 33 from the airport. These voluntary groups have been co-operating
  360
  since last June to provide pastoral care to Chinese refugees in this country. Various helpers from the groups took the 33 to accommodation in north and east London.
  On Wednesday 9 May, the Home Office began to indicate that it had changed its mind about the group of 33 and was proposing to deport them from England to Panama. The Home Office would, therefore, cease considering their claims to asylum. The reason is that the United Kingdom operates a "safe third country" policy: if an asylum seeker has come from a third country which is regarded as safe by the Home Office, the asylum seeker can be sent back there to apply for asylum in that country. The only role of the United Kingdom authorities in such countries is to check that the third country is truly safe.
  Members of the voluntary groups immediately began to check whether Panama was safe, and the information suggested that it was far from safe. The country is still chaotic after the change of Government. There are no legal safeguards for asylum seekers—the eligibility commission, which is supposed to consider asylum claims, has ceased to function. There is strong anti-Chinese feeling in the country, stirred up partly by the new Government. On Friday 11 May, representatives went to see Home Office officials to seek clarification—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty understanding whether the people to whom the hon. Member refers came from Hong Kong. What do they have to do with Hong Kong?
  Mr. Madden: They are from mainland China. They have passed through—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause relates not to mainland China but to Hong Kong.
  Mr. Madden: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These people passed through Hong Kong on their way to Panama and were seeking to travel to Canada—[Interruption.] I do not know what is amusing the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) so much. We are debating matters that are of vital concern to many people.
  The new clause says:
  "The Secretary of State shall by direction given to the Governor make provision for him to consider applications for asylum in the United Kingdom in respect of any person who, by virtue of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, may be in danger of persecution in Hong Kong after 30th June 1997."
  The people to whom I refer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would fit precisely that definition.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about 33 people who are not from Hong Kong but from another country and not about 1997 but about 1990. I find it difficult to connect the two.
  Mr. Madden: The group of people to whom I refer were in Hong Kong and are seeking political asylum in this country. As this debate concerns the procedures operated by the United Kingdom Government in relation to political asylum, I should like to persuade you, Sir, that it is in order to raise their case.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is difficult to understand what the case has to do with the danger of persecution in Hong Kong. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to the new clause or resume his seat.
  Mr. Madden: Let me conclude briefly—
  Mr. Marlow: Would it be fair to say that, if the group went back to Hong Kong, they would be in danger of persecution there?
  Mr. Madden: It is clear that, had they been deported by the United Kingdom Government to Panama, they would have been returned to mainland China. I hope that the Minister may be able to deal with the question whther they would have been returned to Hong Kong in his reply. There are important questions for the Home Office and the Government to answer in relation to this case, which has a direct bearing on those in Hong Kong who may seek political asylum under the new clause.
  On Friday 11 May, representatives went to see Home Office officials to seek clarification and explain to the Home Office their view that Panama was not a safe third country. The officials rejected the representations but said that they would be willing to consider further representations. At 5.15 pm on Friday, the voluntary groups were informed that the 33 were to be collected by coach on Saturday, to be taken for interview at the airport with a view to their deportation by Sunday.
  The 33 Chinese asylum-seekers instructed a lawyer to act for them. He sought the following assurances from the senior immigration officer at Heathrow: first, that the 33 would not be taken into detention at Heathrow on Saturday; secondly, that lawyers could be present at interviews between officials and the 33; and, thirdly, that adequate time would be allowed for the courts to be approached and asked to test the legality of the deporation order—precisely the matter that we were dealing with in the debate immediately before this. The officer refused to give any of those assurances. On Saturday, the interviewees were moved to Harmondsworth detention centre, near Heathrow—a further indication that the immigration service intended to interview the 33 rapidly, place them in detention and deport them before the weekend ended.
  A team of six immigration officers and three Chinese interpreters from the immigration service were present. However, the coach that had been sent to collect the 33 came back empty, the 33 apparently having gone into hiding from immigration service officials.
  I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will say that the Government are now willing to make a public statement indicating that there is no intention to deport the group of 33, a substantial number of whom fled from China by way of Hong Kong.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the connection between the 33 people to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring and the Bill and the new clause?
  Mr. Madden: Their case is central to the treatment by the British Government of those seeking political asylum. If the episode has done anything, it has sent an enormously worrying and alarming signal to Hong Kong. The message that they will receive is as follows: "If you have it in mind to seek political asylum in Britain after 1997, we shall treat you in this way." In my view, the way in which the 33 people have been treated is a shameful indictment of the Government, whose record and reputation on political asylum are, in turn, shameful.
  I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the 33, who include a girl who has just had a baby, will be allowed to come out of hiding and will be given a firm, clear assurance that they will be allowed what they and their
  362
  representatives requested at the time—the right to seek a judicial review of the way in which the case was handled. Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is a matter that we were debating earlier today.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give those assurances. Unless he does, any fine words that he may utter in reply to the debate will have an extremely hollow ring, not only in this country but in Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister will say, on behalf of the Home Office, that when we are presented, as we undoubtedly will be, with further applications from Hong Kong, between now and 1997 and thereafter, the procedures applied will not be the shameful procedures applied in this case. I hope that the Minister can give those assurances, so that representatives of the group can give the advice that they were eager to give in the first place and so that those people's applications can be properly considered and a judicial review properly undertaken by the courts. They have been waiting for some weeks for such a public statement from the Home Office.
  Lastly, I ask the Minister to confirm or deny the rumour that the decision to deport the 33—who included a girl in the advanced stages of pregnancy—was personally approved by the Home Secretary. I have alleged that in the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks but the Home Secretary has sought to dodge the issue and to avoid giving any statement or explanation to the House. I hope that, before the end of our debate, we shall be given the assurance that I have sought and that we will be told whether the decision was personally endorsed and approved by the Home Secretary. If it was, it makes the whole thing even more shameful.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that I have registered with the Registrar of Members' Interests my recent visit to the colony.
  The new clause deals with the worst possible scenario. I wish to address my comments to a group of people who could be the subject of political discrimination arising from the changeover in 1997. We all know that Hong Kong has not practised democracy as we understand it in the western world—first, because, over the years, the people have felt grateful to the colonial authorities which, in their view, rescued them from the political forces in China; and, secondly, because the colony has been about the practice of enterprise and money-making, which is why there are so many successful businesses there.
  In the run-up to 1997, Hong Kong will be faced with the prospect of having to come to terms with democratic arrangements, and the people of Hong Kong will participate in elections. At present, the country is under the control of an Executive Council monitored, in effect, by a Legislative Council. As it moves from one form of control to another, major convulsions in the administration of its society will result. During the period of changeover to democracy in Hong Kong there will be some dramatic times as people, recognising that they have the right to vote, exercise that right and participate in political debates. As they do that, they will look over their shoulders and be ever conscious of what is happening in China. They will consider the implications of what they are doing in the context of that political debate.

  363
  8.30 pm
  When I was in Hong Kong two weeks ago, I was aware of two bodies of opinion. One body of opinion told me repeatedly that the Hong Kong people did not want to draw too much attention to the tensions that might exist between the colony and China. They did not want to draw attention to the difficulties. Some weeks before I arrived in the colony it was suggested that the Chinese authorities had sponsored the theft of three Mercedes cars and shipped them back to China. That led to a major row in the Hong Kong press. Others believed that such matters should not be raised because they were sensitive and might unsettle the Chinese authorities.
  Conversely other people, including politicians such as Mr. Martin Lee, a well-known figure in Hong Kong, believed that the public had a responsibility to debate those matters in the most open fashion. Mr. Lee believed that the Executive Council should act. He called for representations from the British Government to the Chinese Government with regard to the theft of the cars. There is a clear divergence of views on the extent to which the debate should be open, public and voluble as against quiet and discreet.
  Over the next few years the people of Hong Kong will be required to take part in that debate. Unless those who are most voluble, and who believe that they have a contribution to make in ensuring safeguards at the time of changeover, are at least aware of the possibility that they may have the right of asylum in another country, that debate might be dampened down. I am most concerned about that group of people.
  I do not believe that that group is particularly large. However, to some extent the future of the changeover and the compromises that must take place in the period up to the changeover, will be issues which that small group, as politicians and leaders of the community, will have to address following the elections in 1992 and subsequently. That is very important.
  There is another part of the population which we must consider in that context. The problem with addressing that part of the population is that, by implication, in examining their problem, we might open the floodgates in a way that some politicians in this country might try to exploit. When I was in Hong Kong and in Macau, I was aware of major demonstrations. I was in the area just before the anniversary of the events of 4 June although I had no intention of visiting Tiananmen square as was suggested, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on television. That was not my intention. We planned to spend a weekend in southern China on a cultural visit.
  As I said, when I was in Macau and in Hong Kong I was aware of demonstrations on the streets. What will happen to the political leaders who are currently involved in those demonstrations? Must they now curtail their activities because they cannot be sure that they will have the right to be heard in an asylum application in 1997? I am worried about that group of people. I understand the problems that arise from considering that matter. Some people may demonstrate or become involved in finding a way round the Government's nationality proposals. They may believe that by becoming involved they can find another way of getting a right of abode elsewhere.
  If some way could be found to assure those people that if they are politically active and their livelihoods, lives or
  364
  security is endangered, they have at least an opportunity to have their cases for asylum heard, it would do much to mitigate the problem.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman begs his own question. How does he suggest that that problem can be solved? He has a fair point that if someone is indulging in democratic protest in Hong Kong at the moment that might be anathema to the Chinese authorities when they take over. We should perhaps consider that. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, that might provoke other people into going over the top because they are not allowed in under the existing rules. They might protest and seek asylum that way. How would the hon. Gentleman solve that difficult and proper problem?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is why I deployed the counter-argument during my comments. I entered the caveat that I understood other hon. Members might want to enter. I recognise the difficulty and I do not know the answer. Ministers should be aware of the problem. If there is to be full democratic debate in Hong Kong over the next six years, we must accept that certain people in that society will inevitably have to expose themselves to potential penalty from the Chinese authorities in 1997. I hope that the Minister will consider my points.
  Mr. Marlow: This is a very sensitive issue and we have had a valuable debate. The Opposition are to be congratulated on their new clause. I do not say that I agree with it, but we must carefully discuss the issue. I am sorry that there are so few right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber to carry the debate forward.
  I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) had to say about the problems facing refugees, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West. However, obviously people in Hong Kong will be deeply concerned and influenced by the way in which we deal today with people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom.
  The Bill's objective is to keep people in Hong Kong. As I have said, I do not believe that it will achieve that objective. It will have the opposite effect. However, I accept that it is the Government's objective to keep people there. If that is what they are trying to do, how sensitively and fairly the problems set out by the hon. Member for Bradford, West are dealt with by the agencies of Government will be noted in Hong Kong.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman that was a percipient and perceptive comment. That is what I thought that I was doing.
  Things in Hong Kong are bound to be sensitive and people in Hong Kong will be looking to this country to see how we deal with immigration and asylum issues because that will have an impact on how they react to the confidence-building measures that the Government intend for them.
  There are other aspects of asylum of which even now we should take account. I suspect that I will part company with the hon. Member for Bradford, West in my next point. Most people are aware that there is a growing phenomenon throughout the world: the world is becoming

  365
  a smaller place as radio and television transmitters receive and transmit news from one part of the world to another. People in the poorer parts are becoming increasingly aware of the relative wealth and good fortune of those in the wealthier areas.
  There is a growing phenomenon, which has already been noted, of people wanting to move from the poorer parts of the world to the wealthier parts. We have seen it happen, and we are seeing it happen at the moment. Of course, at the same time travel is becoming more readily available. There are many benefits from that—for example, it is cheaper and more people can avail themselves of it. Also, people have already made the transition and migrated from the third world to Europe and to America. Having arrived in Europe and America, they acquire adequate wealth to remit some of their money to friends and relatives in the third world. There is a growing and accelerating tendency in this ever-smaller, growing world for people to wish to come and join us in our good fortune in the United Kingdom, Europe and the western world.
  Stories have been written and scenarios have been presented. About 10 years ago, a book was written about people from Indonesia. There had been some devastation in Indonesia. People were chartering hulks—old leaky boats—and arriving in their tens of thousands, if not in hundreds of thousands, off Marseilles, leaving their boats and effectively marching into France and daring the authorities to do anything about it. I understand that there was a television programme quite recently about the poor and the oppressed of north Africa—I am not saying that they were oppressed by Governments, but they were oppressed by famine and their circumstances—wishing to migrate northwards into Europe. The problem of migration and the granting of asylum related to the desire for migration will become a much greater political issue in the western world, in the European Community, and certainly, I believe, in the United Kingdom.
  When we are addressing this interesting new clause, we should bear the wider issues in mind. I do not know how Opposition Members view the matter at the moment but, at the back of their minds, they must be aware of the potential problem—I do not say that in a pejorative way—that will almost overwhelm western democracies unless we have an adequate but, at the same time, sensitive way of dealing with it. Millions of people are suffering from starvation, millions of people are suffering from deprivation, and millions of people are suffering from a lack of civil liberty and from political harassment in the countries in which they live. Many of those millions are seeking and will continue to seek to migrate.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will address not only the short-term aspects of this issue and the very real importance of the Government's assessment of the issue with regard to the future of Hong Kong, given what the Government are trying to do—and with good motive are trying to do—but the potential problems of the long-term and escalating issue of large-scale migration.
  New clause 3 states:
  "The Secretary of State shall by direction given to the Governor make provision for him to consider applications."
  I assume that "by direction" means writing a chap a letter and telling him how he should do it and what powers he
  366
  has, or did the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) have it in mind that it should be written into an Order in Council that the House should address at a later stage? Is it a matter for the Secretary of State, or is it a matter that the hon. Gentleman considers is proper for the House to have—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might be trying to delay proceedings on the Bill. I hope that he is not doing that.
  Mr. Marlow: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is of that opinion. It would be totally inappropriate and wrong for any right hon. or hon. Member to seek to delay the proceedings on the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would take appropriate action were that to arise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening with great care and apprehension to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your great courtesy in listening to my speech with such care.
  The new clause includes the words,
  "to consider applications for asylum".
  Will the Governor decide or recommend? Who is to make the final decision? The new clause goes on with the words, "in respect of any person who, by virtue of his"—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman will carry on as long as he wants. He could cut his comments quite short if he were just to read what is on the amendment paper. All the answers that he wants are set out in the new clause.
  Mr. Marlow: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. I have read the new clause several times to myself, but I shall read it out aloud if the hon. Gentleman would be more convinced by it.
  The new clause states that the Governor should consider applications. Who is to make a decision on those applications? Is it the Opposition's intention that, yet again, the Governor should have the power effectively of deciding who should get citizenship in this country, or do they believe that the matter should be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary?
  8.45 pm
  After 30 June 1997, people who belong to a certain race—however that is defined—or religion, splinter group from a religion, nationality or political opinion might be in danger of persecution in Hong Kong. That could be a great number of people. Hong Kong is a haven—thank goodness for that—for capitalism. It is a very successful capitalist economy. Although there has been some change in the economic policy of the People's Republic of China over the past few years, there has not been a great change in political policy—there is great repression there. We have noticed in the not-too-distant past, Mao Tse-Tung and the great revolution—I forget its name at the moment.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not the long march?
  Mr. Marlow: No, not the long march. It was 15 or 20 years ago—the cultural revolution. Who is to say that, in 1996, there will not be another cultural revolution—perhaps a more vigorous and violent cultural revolution than before? Is it not possible in those circumstances that any shopkeeper, share owner or anybody in a position of management or authority within Hong Kong could

  367
  maintain the risk after 1997 as the Chinese authorities take over? Is not that in a way opening the door even wider than the Opposition might intend to open it? As a result of the Government's proposal, there is a possibility of 250,000 or more Hong Kong Chinese coming to this country.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish". Does he want to sustain that point?
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What about the statistics?
  Mr. Marlow: The immigration statistics over the past six years are significant. Over the past three years, for example, the number of immigrants to this country from the third world would be sufficient to populate a whole parliamentary constituency. Between the two previous elections, the number of immigrants from the third world—people with different cultural backgrounds and people with largely poor backgrounds—who have come to this country has been sufficient to populate a town the size of Northampton. That is a great number of people.
  Mr. Tim Janman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the number of people whom he describes coming to this country is considerably lower, thankfully, than it has been under socialist Administrations—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking about people seeking political asylum from Hong Kong. I hope that we shall stick to that topic.
  Mr. Marlow: I am sorry about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was seeking to lead me down a road that I was originally dragged down by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The fault is not my hon. Friend's. It rests with the Opposition.
  Should a regrettable event take place—I do not know whether an event can be regrettable before it happens—such as a culutural revolution squared or a cultural revolution with knobs on in China and if the new clause is passed—I understand why the Opposition have tabled it and to a certain extent it does them credit because it shows their civility and decency—there must be a risk—there are emotive considerations to any word one chooses and I do not use "risk" in a pejorative way—or a real possibility that, whatever the number of immigrants resulting from the Government's details in the Bill, the number of applications for asylum as a result of the new clause—I am still in the dark about whether the applications would be granted by the Governor or the Home Secretary—could be 10,000, 100,000 or 500,000. There are 6 million people in Hong Kong now and many—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman competing with Norman?
  Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that numbers are not important and are not an issue, let him stand on his own two feet and tell the House that the number of immigrants is not of interest or concern to the British people. If that is what he is saying, let him say it loud and clear. I am happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Under the next amendment.
  Mr. Marlow: It may be out of order to say so, but the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he will deal with the matter under the next amendment.
  If events go wrong in China and the black and gloomy scenario, the Gotterdammerung or—
  Mr. Foulkes: The Armageddon.
  Mr. Marlow:—the Armageddon—I thank the hon. Gentleman—develops, and if the new clause is accepted, well intentioned though it is, there is a real possibility that 500,000 to 1 million Hong Kong Chinese would reasonably feel that they were in danger of persecution in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the general feeling on Conservative Benches about the measure. He will not be unaware of the anxiety on these Benches should such a new clause be passed.
  Mr. Maclennan: I hoped that a new clause such as this would not be necessary, because the practice of British Governments in dealing with asylum cases would have given security to and assured those who might be apprehensive of their political position following 1997.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), rightly, raised the case of the 33 Chinese people who came from Hong Kong and sought political asylum. It casts a lurid light over the practice of the Home Office in dealing with asylum cases. I too have made representations to the Home Office about it, but the questions raised by the case have not been answered. Many of those people undoubtedly have a strong case for political asylum. That they should all have been made the subject of summary proceedings and that passages should have been booked to send them back to a country where they were fearful for their future does not conform with the best British methods of dealing with asylum. Therefore, the case is pertinent background to the new clause which, as I have said, I had hoped would not have been necessary.
  The new clause would be difficult to operate, if it were enacted. It would be operated against the background of tight controls over immigration and of many people, dissatisfied at having been excluded on other grounds from the United Kingdom, looking increasingly desperately as the 1997 deadline approaches for some other way out. To impose on the Governor the responsibility for evaluating the claims of those people ahead of that time would be an onerous burden.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have some experience of screening in Hong Kong.
  Mr. Maclennan: We do not have experience of screening on the scale that might develop if there were no amelioration in Peking. I would prefer to hear the Minister say that the Government will look seriously at all cases of asylum as and when asylum is sought. That must be the right way to proceed. That assurance could be backed up by a clear sign of the Government's rethinking of the case of the 33 Chinese. Without some sign on that score, any assurances given will sound rather empty.
  Although there may be insuperable problems with the new clause, I am extremely symapathetic to the Opposition's purpose in tabling it because I hope that it will elicit from the Government how they intend to deal with these problems as they arise. People such as Martin Lee are undoubtedly exposed, as many others who are courageously seeking to lead the country out of the period

  369
  of colonisation towards the objective of one Government of two systems in one country through democratic processes. One does not wish to name names or to single out people. Martin Lee has singled himself out. There are many such people, and the number will increase.
  If the Government's purpose of maintaining the population of Hong Kong and the stability of the political situation there is to be supported, the question of asylum cannot be ducked. It is not dealt with directly in the Bill, and the Opposition are right to raise it in the new clause.
  Mr. Tebbit: We need not detain ourselves much longer on this new clause. I do not want to delay matters because I sense that the Opposition, who are whipped to vote against the Bill, are melting away every moment. I hope that many of them will join me in the Lobby tonight, if we reach Third Reading, to reiterate the Labour party's opposition to the Bill, as stated by its Front-Bench Members, if not its Back-Bench Members, on Second Reading.
  Some important issues are raised by the new clause. They can be dealt with quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) took a lengthy walk around some of the problems that are raised by the new clause, but no one can be in any doubt that he pointed to some serious problems which will arise in the future.
  Those of us who watched television the other evening and saw pictures of even internal refugees in the Soviet Union pleading that they were starving in Moscow following their flight from ethnic and political problems cannot doubt that far larger numbers of people around the world will seek to leave countries which are deep in ethnic, political and economic problems to go to countries which are more peaceable.
  9 pm
  One cannot assume that everyone who arrives at the shores of Great Britain saying, "I am in difficulties with the Government of the country in which I live," or, "The country in which I live is suffering from civil war," or all people whose countries are afflicted by some other form of violence can properly be admitted. We simply cannot do that. We would have to consider that danger if we legislated in the manner suggested in the Bill.
  I may find myself in complete agreement with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). At present we have a system that has been operated by successive Governments, under which those who are regarded as political refugees can be given asylum in the United Kingdom. If we opened that up in terms such as those suggested in the amendment, even if only for Hong Kong, which might set a precedent for other areas of the world, we should have opened a door which would be so wide open as to be unacceptable.
  Not everyone who is in political difference with his Government is necessarily a desirable citizen to admit to one's country. Not everyone whose country is suffering from civil war can be admitted. We could not easily admit to Britain the entire people of the unfortunate country of the Lebanon simply because a civil war was raging there.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not accept the new clause and will say that he and the Government
  370
  will abide by the rules and arrangements which have been in use for many years, to which we should stick, even in particularly hard cases.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): This is a serious subject and it is right that the House takes it seriously and gives itself the opportunity to debate it in the context of the new clause.
  I had a good deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who, sadly, has left the Chamber. He spoke of the need for debate in Hong Kong to be open and full and not constrained by the unique circumstances in which Hong Kong finds itself. It is important that the Hong Kong Government and the British Government operate in such a way that people do not feel that they are under such a constraint. That would be bad for Hong Kong.
  Traditionally, Hong Kong has had a spirit of open and free debate. Those of us who have been there and faced the massed ranks of the Hong Kong media know that Hong Kong does not feel like a closed, repressed society where comment is constrained. While occasionally, I, like many of us, have been victim of that open and free comment, none of us would want it to be quelled in any way. It is important that we should do what we can to ensure that that spirit remains. It is essentially a part of the way of life of Hong Kong, which the joint declaration commits both China and Britain to preserve after 1997.
  I understand the spirit that lies behind new clause 3, but it is fundamentally misconceived. Although there are unusual circumstances in Hong Kong, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) correctly stated, arrangements are in place whereby after 1997 signatories to the 1951 convention on refugees will operate in respect of people in Hong Kong in precisely the same way as they operate now.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), took the opportunity to talk about specific cases and, in the context of those specific cases, to dwell a little on the way in which asylum policy operates in general in this country. It is not for me to comment on the general operation of those provisions or on the specific cases. The hon. Gentleman is an ingenious parliamentary operator and will be able to find plenty of opportunities to question my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has specific responsibility for these matters.
  However, the hon. Member for Bradford, West will know that it is customary international practice to regard the most appropriate country to consider a claim for asylum to be the signatory country of the 1951 convention at which the applicant first arrives. Panama is such a signatory and it has been decided that Panama is a safe third country in the normal sense. I stress that that has been decided not by us but by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Panama is safe, in the sense that it can be expected not to reject genuine applicants for asylum.
  I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a fundamental misconception for him to believe that we unilaterally decided that Panama is a safe country. That is not a decision that would be taken by one country on its own.
  Mr. MaddenI am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks, and I accept his point. However, I hope that the impression that he is seeking to leave—that in some way Britain would be required to deport those young people to Panama—is wholly untrue. At the core of our concern is the fact that the Home Office is refusing to allow a judicial review of decisions in this case, while halting deportation to enable proper judicial reviews to take place.
  As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is now sitting on the Treasury Bench, I should be grateful if the Minister would take the opportunity of this debate to make it clear that, if those young people come out of hiding and if a judicial review is applied for, no action will be taken to deport them to Panama or anywhere else.
  Mr. Maude: I shall not be drawn into commenting on that specific case any further, because it does not fall within my responsibilities; nor does it arise—except tangentially—from this debate. However, the hon. Gentleman's points will have been heard and will no doubt be properly dealt with. As I have said, he will have opportunities to raise this matter in the ordinary course of events.
  The new clause is fundamentally misconceived because, even if it were included in the Bill, it could not operate after 1997 because it gives the Home Secretary the power to direct the Governor of Hong Kong to do certain things —and the Governor of Hong Kong will not be the Governor of Hong Kong, and will certainly not be subject to directions from the Home Secretary, after 1997. Therefore, the provisions could apply only until 30 June 1997.
  Those who have reason to believe before 1997 that they will be subject to persecution after 1997 for any of the reasons set out in the new clause are entitled, under the sensitive services scheme provided by the Bill, to apply for consideration. As was said in Committee, that is not limited to Crown or to Hong Kong Government servants. It is open to those in the private sector and to those who may have been commentators on or participants in the political process. Therefore, there are specific provisions for those who believe before 1997 that they may be subject to persecution after 1997.
  For those who cannot anticipate that, or who become subject to persecution after 1997, the ordinary procedures of the 1951 convention would apply in any event. I do not foresee that, after 1997, people in Hong Kong will be subject to persecution.
  Mr. Darling: I accept that those in the sensitive services may be entitled to apply under the scheme; whether they succeed is another matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others were saying that there will be ordinary citizens, not people in sensitive services, who for various reasons have done something that may lead them to believe that they have reason to fear after 1997. We are concerned about those people, and they do not qualify under the special scheme.
  Mr. Maude: The sensitive services scheme, despite being described in that way, is not limited to Crown servants or to Hong Kong Government servants. It is open to private citizens who are not Government employees and are not connected with the Administration in any way. There is scope for journalists, perhaps, and private
  372
  participants in the political process who have expressed themselves in a way that may lead them to have fear of persecution after 1997, to apply under the scheme.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It might arise that some people's political activities are recognised by the Chinese authorities only after the final tranche has been allocated.
  Mr. Maude: That is, inevitably, a possibility. The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise it. The Bill has been introduced with the constraint throughout, and rightly so, that there is an absolute limit of numbers. It does not provide any open-ended commitment. There is a strict limit. The House would not permit us, even if we wanted to, to bring forward a scheme that would inevitably involve that which the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend is sliding slightly away from the heart of the argument. He is saying that there would not be admission under the Bill, which does place a limit on numbers. There would be admission, if it were thought appropriate, under the normal practice of admitting refugees. That would mean that there would be no limitations.
  There is a danger, against which none of us can guard, of people who think that they will be disadvantaged economically behaving in a politically outrageous way that is clearly grossly offensive to the Chinese authorities to try to get themselves admitted. They would be economic migrants, a category which is well known in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong authorities have a particularly tough and ruthless way of dealing with those who come within that category.
  Mr. Maude: The House will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, and will be able to judge whether what he suggests is a likely eventuality. I think that there is adequate scope within the Bill for those who can envisage that they may be subject to persecution and for those who, after 1997, find themselves subject to persecution. It is then that the convention will apply. I do not foresee that people will be subject to persecution. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have urged upon the Government that we should have faith in the commitment of the Chinese Government to the joint declaration, and I do have such faith.
  Mr. Wareing: Can we have faith after Tiananmen square?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes neither a new nor an illuminating observation from a sedentary position. He asks whether the same faith is possible after the events that took place in Tiananmen square. It is precisely because confidence has been affected in Hong Kong as a result of those events that we have introduced the Bill, and I believe that it will be effective in restoring some confidence. It does not radically alter the commitment which the Chinese Government have made to the joint declaration. Since the Tiananmen square events, they have put an enormous amount of work into framing the Basic Law and making arrangements for elections within that law. They are not in every respect arrangements with which we are content, and we shall have the opportunity to talk about that later.
  The Chinese Government's approach, however, is an odd one for a Government who do not intend to be bound by the provisions of the joint declarations. If they were a

  373
  Government who were proposing to tear up the provisions after 1997, it would be odd for them to devote so much energy and effort to getting the provisions in a form with which they are content. I believe that there are grounds for being confident that the joint declaration will be respected after 1997. That involves a clear commitment to civil rights, which will be incorporated in both the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights that the Hong Kong Government are bringing forward.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Darling: I hope that the Minister is right, and that there will be no need for anyone to seek asylum under this or any other scheme. Surely, however, he accepts the possibility that one or more people may be at risk. Our suggestion is that there should be a special scheme to deal with the special circumstances in Hong Kong. What is his opposition to that? He must accept that the possibility exists; we would not be discussing the Bill tonight if we were not afraid that things might go wrong. What is his difficulty?
  Mr. Maude: One difficulty is the fact that asylum cannot operate except in respect of someone from a foreign country, and Hong Kong before 1997—which is when the provision will apply—is not a foreign country. The concept of people from Hong Kong seeking asylum in the United Kingdom is an absurdity.
  Mr. Darling: I can see that argument. The Minister is effectively saying that, if there are people in Hong Kong who have reason to fear for their safety now, or at any time before 1997, the Government will say, "Tough luck: you can apply for asylum only after 1997, when you may not even be able to get outside, let alone do anything about it."
  If the Minister accepts that there are special circumstances in Hong Kong, surely we must cater for those who may be at risk, and the Opposition are merely suggesting that there should be some system to do that. I do not accept the special services scheme, because I do not think that it is wide enough to deal with anyone who might be in difficulty as a special category.
  I am beginning to think that the Government are concerned only about people with an economic need to get out of Hong Kong, and have no great regard for those who may genuinely fear for their lives. Those, however, are the people whom the majority of people in this country would like us to look after.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman demonstrated earlier that he had not grasped the essential point that I made both in Committee and earlier in the debate. The sensitive service scheme provides for private citizens in precisely that category. His new clause proposes that the Governor should be required to give special consideration to applications for asylum. There cannot be applications for asylum from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom before 1997. That is why the provision is both unnecessary and inherently absurd.
  Mr. Marlow: I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) was talking about the difficulties of getting out of Hong Kong after 1997. If an
  374
  adverse regime in China had taken possession of Hong Kong, how would the citizens of Hong Kong be able to apply for asylum?
  Mr. Maude: They would be in the same position as asylum seekers anywhere. People can seek asylum only when they have left the place that they wish to leave, and have arrived in the country in which they seek asylum.
  Mr. Darling: The Minister is getting into some difficulty. If he examines the provisions relating to the sensitive service section, he will see that the people concerned are those who have
  "been exposed to special considerations and special factors during the course of their duties."
  Those claiming admission under that section would have to prove that whatever they were doing was in the course of their duties, or their employment. It does not take account of someone—for example, a stallholder—who for one reason or another took part in a demonstration or some other political activity, as that activity would not be carried in the course of his duties. In addition, such people would have to be
  "in the course of serving Hong Kong or United Kingdom interests in either a civilian or military role".
  The provision does not take account of the ordinary man in the street.
  That is our objection to the Minister's assertion that we do not have to worry because the sensitive sevice section will take care of things. He knows that it concerns people who—because of the nature of their employment—may be at risk, and not people whose contact with political activity is entirely ancillary to their normal work.
  Mr. Maude: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is reading from, but I can assure him that it is not intended that the scheme should be limited in that way. It is intended that the scheme should operate in precisely the way that I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department have set out. Commentators, journalists or participants in the political process who fear that they may be subject to persecution will be entitled to apply under the scheme. Therefore, provision is properly made.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) read from the explanatory memorandum which I had sought to incorporate in the Bill in order that we could be certain about the Government's intentions. But my hon. Friend has just told the House not to worry about that; that that is not what it will be like when it comes to the point. What credence can we put on any of the explanatory memorandum if that bit does not apply?
  Mr. Maude: I make precisely the point that my hon. Friend made earlier—that it is precisely to enable the House to express its views about what is in the explanatory memorandum that we published it in the way that we did at this stage.
  In those circumstances, new clause 3 is not appropriate. It would not be workable in the context of the Bill, and I invite the House to reject it.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 289.

  Division No. 231]

  [9.21 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Alton, David

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, Hilary

  375

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Ingram, Adam

  Bell, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Boyes, Roland

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bradley, Keith

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Lewis, Terry

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Buckley, George J.

  Livsey, Richard

  Caborn, Richard

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  McAllion, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Canavan, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Carr, Michael

  McKelvey, William

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McLeish, Henry

  Clay, Bob

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clelland, David

  McWilliam, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Corbett, Robin

  Marek, Dr John

  Cox, Tom

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Crowther, Stan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Martlew, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Maxton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Meacher, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Darling, Alistair

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morley, Elliot

  Dewar, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dixon, Don

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Doran, Frank

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Murphy, Paul

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Nellist, Dave

  Eastham, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  O'Brien, William

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Parry, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Fearn, Ronald

  Pendry, Tom

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fisher, Mark

  Radice, Giles

  Flannery, Martin

  Redmond, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Reid, Dr John

  Foster, Derek

  Richardson, Jo

  Foulkes, George

  Robertson, George

  Fraser, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Rooker, Jeff

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Snape, Peter

  Henderson, Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Hinchliffe, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Stott, Roger

  Home Robertson, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Straw, Jack

  Howells, Geraint

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  376

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wilson, Brian

  Turner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Wallace, James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Worthington, Tony

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wells, Bowen

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. James Dunnachie.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Allason, Rupert

  Eggar, Tim

  Amess, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Favell, Tony

  Atkins, Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkinson, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bellingham, Henry

  Franks, Cecil

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Freeman, Roger

  Benyon, W.

  Fry, Peter

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gill, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hannam, John

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butcher, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cash, William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hill, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Critchley, Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Curry, David

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Janman, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  377

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kilfedder, James

  Riddick, Graham

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knowles, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lang, Ian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Latham, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lilley, Peter

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  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, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mellor, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trippier, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Viggers, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Needham, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Neubert, Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Patnick, Irvine

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Price, Sir David

  Raffan, Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Michael Fallon.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

  REGISTRATION OF SPOUSES OF BRITISH CITIZENS
  'The Secretary of State shall register as British citizens the spouses of British citizens resident in Hong Kong at the time of the coming into force of this Act.'.—[Mr. Channon.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Paul Channon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 5—Registration of widowed spouses—
  'The Secretary of State shall register as a British citizen a widowed spouse of a British citizen resident in Hong Kong who dies after the coming into force of this Act.'.
  New clause 10—Regulation of Spouses—
  '(1) The Secretary of State shall register as British Citizens, any persons, resident in Hong Kong, who have been married to British Citizens for at least three years and who would qualify for British Citizenship if they had been resident in Britain for three years after their marriage.'.
  Amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
  Amendment No. 29, in schedule 2, page 5, line 3, after `shall' insert 'not'.
  Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 8, leave out paragraph 2.
  Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'whether the' and insert `whose'.
  Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'or after'.
  Amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 12, leave out from `above' to end of line 14.
  Amendment No. 34, in page 5, line 25, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
  '5. For the purposes of this Schedule the spouse or child must be settled in Hong Kong and must not have citizenship or nationality other than under the principal Act.'.
  Amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
  ' 1 A. The Secretary of State may register a child recommended to him by the Governor in circumstances where that child is dependent on his parents registered under this Act or where there are other reasons that in the Secretary of State's view justify the registration of such a child.'.
  Mr. Channon: These amendments deal with a small group of people in Hong Kong and raise important principles that the House should consider. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has added his name to one of the amendments. I have no objection to the wording that he adopted, and claim no credit for my own.
  On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave assurances about what would happen to the non-United Kingdom spouses of United Kingdom citizens. He said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 19 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1574.]
  That is not exactly the case. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking off the cuff, and I do not blame him for that. However, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would set out the true position.
  The whole purpose of the Bill is to anchor in Hong Kong United Kingdom and Chinese Hong Kong citizens of a crucial nature. It is also important to anchor there a

  379
  number of United Kingdom citizens, many of whom are in the police and senior ranks of the civil service, apart from those engaged in commerce. I understand the problems of precedent that my hon. Friend the Minister may explain to the House and the argument that if we made such a provision for Hong Kong, we would have to do so in other cases. I do not accept that. Unless Hong Kong were a special case, there would be no need for the Bill. If the Government did not consider Hong Kong a special case, why are we wasting our time?
  It seems only reasonable that the small number of non-United Kingdom spouses of British citizens should be allowed to come to this country without all the difficulties that attend their efforts at the moment. After all, in Hong Kong we are dealing with a Crown colony that we are returning to Chinese rule against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants. I cannot think of a single precedent for that in British colonial history, so I urge the House not to rely on the argument of precedent. It is a very strange situation.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman fully explain that?
  Mr. Channon: I will come to that point. If I can get the hon. Gentleman with me, I shall be very pleased.
  There is a strange anomaly in what is being proposed, in that residents who are not United Kingdom citizens but who are offered passports will as a right be able to bring their spouses and children into this country, and they will get proper United Kingdom passports as part of the Bill's arrangements. At the same time, United Kingdom citizens already living in Hong Kong and who may have married Hong Kong Chinese or citizens from other countries will not have a right to a British passport in the same way as those who are privileged under the Bill. I find that very odd.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman be pushing it to a vote?
  Mr. Channon: If I have the hon. Gentleman with me, I know that I will win.
  The numbers involved are very small—I suspect, a few hundred at most. Probably no one knows exactly how many, but is is unlikely that they number more than a few hundred. Such a provision would almost certainly not result in any increase in the numbers who come to this country as British citizens because eventually, I accept, most will manage to achieve entry anyway. But the process through which they will be put is unfortunate considering what will happen to the Hong Kong citizens who will receive one of the 50,000 passports.
  In any case, it is not true to say that the spouses have an absolute right to come here. They have to fulfil certain conditions before being admitted to this country. They have to show that they will not be a burden on public funds, which could sometimes cause serious problems. If someone loses his job in Hong Kong and has no job to come to here, how can he or his wife prove that his or her spouse will never become a burden on public funds? He or she may become such a burden precisely because the British Government—probably inevitably—are going to return Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997.
  Settlement clearance has to be obtained, too. Indeed, some such cases have been turned down, as the Minister told me in a parliamentary answer not so long ago.
  380
  Perhaps he could say a word or two about those cases—I concede that they may not have been on all fours with these—but in the absence of further explanation it looks as though there have been some cases of non-United Kingdom spouses of British citizens living in Hong Kong being refused admission to this country—and that cannot be right.
  If the political emergency about which most people in Hong Kong are worried arises, I believe that quite a number of expatriates living in Hong Kong will think it much safer to leave Hong Kong before 1997 to be sure of getting their spouses into this country. That is contrary to the whole point of the Bill which, after all, is designed to anchor people in Hong Kong so that its economy does not collapse before 1997 because of a lack of people with necessary expertise. These expatriates are clearly worried about their spouses' position—rightly or wrongly—and I urge the Government to do what they can to help.
  Some people have already left. I know of people who have left because of their fear of not being able to get their wives into this country; some are seriously thinking about the future and are likely to leave in the coming months and years.
  The Government have made a concession on widows, but it does not go quite as far as it seems to: it applies only to widows with no other nationality. Some people are married not to Hong Kong Chinese wives or husbands but to Thais, Filipinos or Japanese. They may not have been in contact with their country for many years. Many of them, typically, have children at school in this country and own a house here. Nevertheless, they will have no right of entry even if their husbands have British passports. Is it any wonder that husbands—we are talking overwhelmingly of husbands—are seriously thinking of leaving Hong Kong instead of taking the risk of leaving their families in this position in the next few years?
  Under the law—I do not refer to widows who have another citizenship—most widows will have the right to enter this country, but they will then need three years' residence before being entitled to naturalisation. Why cannot it be arranged, in these special circumstances, that the three years be served in Hong Kong?
  There is no way of telling, merely by looking at a Hong Kong British dependent territories citizen's passport whether he has any connection with the United Kingdom. There is no way of showing that a person is married to a British citizen, and there is no way that such a person can be sure, despite what the Basic Law says, that she will be able to get out in 1997. So many of them will not take the risk, and will come here. I do not believe that that is what the Government want.
  If my new clause cannot be accepted—it should be—can my hon. Friend say anything further tonight that might help those people? Could they not serve the three years residence in Hong Kong? Could a stamp be put on the passports of spouses who have British dependent territory passports to show that they have a connection with the United Kingdom? Is there any merit in the voluntary registration scheme, whereby the British authorities in Hong Kong would know who these spouses were and could help them?
  The House must understand—I think it does—that we are living in volatile times in Hong Kong, and an emergency there cannot be ruled out. If, in the next few years, the Chinese regime remains hostile and is thought to

  381
  be damaging to the future of Hong Kong, many expatriates will leave because of their worries about their spouses.
  I cannot believe that it is right, when we are giving special privileges to 50,000 people of Hong Kong citizenship, that we cannot give an assurance to a small number of United Kingdom citizens who have spouses, lives and careers that they want to look after and foster in the next few years. If they are in doubt, of course they will go now. Why take the risk of waiting until 1997 to see what happens?
  9.45 pm
  What reassurances can my hon. Friend the Minister give those people? I ask him to think seriously about their position, because they are worried about their future and spouses. If we do nothing to reassure them in legislation or by some other means, there is a risk that many will leave. That will be damaging for Hong Kong, for the Hong Kong police, for the civil service and for attempts being made by the Government to anchor key people in the colony.
  I ask my hon. Friend to give the new clause serious consideration. Few people are involved, but it is an important point of principle.
  Mr. Marlow: How many?
  Mr. Channon: I think 200 or 300, but it may be 400 or 500; no one knows exactly. We are talking not about thousands of people but about a small number.
  I urge the House to give the new clause serious consideration and to join me in pressing the Government to do more to reassure those people.
  Mr. Maclennan: I support the purposes of the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in tabling the two new clauses, which seek to achieve the same ends as my new clause 10. Like him, I am not certain that the method that I have advocated to achieve those ends is right, and I would happily support his new clause if he decided that it was appropriate to divide the House.
  The primary purpose of the Bill is to offer British citizenship to a select number of people, thereby offering an incentive to the people on whom Hong Kong depends. I am concerned that the treatment of spouses, with which the new clauses deal, contradicts that policy. As long as a couple manage to persuade the immigration authorities that the primary purpose of marriage is marriage and not an attempt to get a passport, citizenship is won after the spouses has been in Britain for three years. But with the uncertainty in Hong Kong, many British residents who may have been working there for years and regard it as their home may feel forced to leave for the safety of their spouse. Furthermore, the most concerned people are most likely to be the business and professional people whom the Government want to remain in Hong Kong.
  There are also people who are not catered for by the scheme set out in the Bill. The crucial Act is the British Nationality Act 1981, which establishes the three-year residence requirement. My drafting would seek to go with the grain of that Act and to cater for the needs of spouses. It does not therefore go quite as far as the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Southend, West. It
  382
  would simply allow residence in Hong Kong to be the equivalent of that in Britain—to acquire citizenship through one's spouse.
  In Commitee, the Minister said:
  "There is no practical difficulty about the position of the partners of British citizens when the citizens are still alive. Such non-British spouses can accompany their husbands or wives to the United Kingdom for settlement at any time. Of course, they do not get British citizenship immediately; that is governed by the normal rules under the 1981 Act."
  That is the exact point. They had to leave their homes and businesses to secure the future of their spouses. That runs counter to the Bill's purposes. The Minister continued:
  "we want to keep as closely to that Act as we can and have acted differently under the Bill only when there was a special and compelling reason to do so."
  New clause 10 would keep within the requirements of the 1981 Act.
  One of the most compelling reasons for people wanting to leave to ensure that their spouses are registered is the fear that something might happen to them and place their spouses in an untenable position. The Minister addressed that point in Committee and said:
  "We accept that in such unique circumstances, it is natural that the expatriate community should be particularly anxious about widows—as they will be in the majority of cases—after 1997. Because of that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a new assurance on Second Reading. He said that the widowed spouse of a British citizen who was resident in the territory at the time of the death would be allowed to settle here as a concession outside the immigration rules. That assurance will certainly be honoured by this Government." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 May 1990; c.94–5.]
  That is of some value, but it is certainly not an assurance that leads directly to citizenship. It may well be that the widow or widower would have strong domestic and economic ties with Hong Kong and would therefore be in a dreadful dilemma as to what to do. New clause 10 would ensure that that dilemma did not arise in most cases. The Government accept the need to encourage people to stay to ensure that there is a viable Hong Kong between now and 1997. I therefore commend my new clause to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Steven—
  Several Hon. Members: Norris.
  Mr. Speaker: Steven Norris.
  Mr. Steve Norris: It is terribly off-putting to have one of those faces that is so instantly forgettable. Quite apart from having dined within 6 ft of you this evening, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that in these circumstances it induces a certain sense of personal humility of a new order, even for those of us in this profession, and I shall remember this long after you have forgotten yet again, Sir. I remember what happened in 1983 when I was the Member for Oxford, East and you looked across at me and said, "Morris Oxford." It was not right then and it is not right still. That apart, I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise. I was thinking what a nice wife the hon. Member has.
  Mr. Norris: That is typically gracious of you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that my wife will be delighted to hear that. Of course I entirely agree, and I hasten to place it on the record.
  I recall that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) raised the matter which is the subject of the new clause with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who used the words of which my right hon. Friend reminded us. He said that spouses in this position have an absolute right to enter. That remark was repeated more than once. I share the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the validity of that remark. Those of us who have experienced the difficulties of our constituents who are in the position described by the Home Secretary will know that the process is far from easy. It is particularly difficult if one's face is not white and if one is not obviously of British stock.
  One thing on which we can agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is that the position of spouses in both categories covered by my right hon. Friend's new clause is no different from that of spouses in any other country. That may or may not reflect well on our immigration procedures. My experience in my previous constituency—not so much in my present constituency— is that it does not reflect well. But we shall pass over that because it is a subject for another occasion. The inequity that we are discussing is not an inequity as between spouses in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world. It has to do with the extraordinary proposition that if an ethnic Chinese obtains a passport under the scheme and his ethnic Chinese wife obtains a passport under the scheme, his ethnic Chinese wife is in a substantially better position than the ethnic Chinese wife of a British citizen.
  What are the practical consequences of that extraordinary proposition? I received the introduction of the Bill with considerable scepticism, my initial observation being that it was difficult to see why, under a scheme designed to keep people in Hong Kong, a large number of passports should be issued to enable them to come to Britain. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to go to Hong Kong to see what the place and the people are like. It was a refreshing experience.
  Mr. Skinner: Who paid?
  Mr. Norris: My visit was paid for entirely by the Hong Kong Government, and in my case, at least, they made a spectacularly good investment. I came away convinced that, whatever else the package may be, it is not an immigration package and that, if anything, it should be broader. My right hon. and very dear Friend, my next-door neighbour in Chingford, will probably be deeply disappointed with me—among other things—when I say that it is rather embarrassing to be a British Member of Parliament visiting Hong Kong. Surveys have been conducted to discover where the Hong Kong Chinese want to go if they have to leave. A survey of surveyors showed that 48 per cent. wanted to go to Canada; 32 per cent. to Australia; 8 per cent. to the United States; and 1·8 per cent. to Britain. Incidentally, 1·1 per cent. of those who wanted to come here wished to use Britain to go elsewhere in the European Community.
  It was my first visit to Hong Kong. As ever, the Hong Kong people were extraordinarily courteous and polite,
  384
  but they said, "You really must be mad—not to say a little arrogant—to imagine that we would ever, in a thousand years, really want to come to live in Britain, although it is frightfully nice of you to be so considerate." Clearly, what the Hong Kong people want is an anchoring package. That became clear to me. If one has to say that one's initial reservations were wrong, I am glad to say it because it was certainly true in my case.
  In the context of anchoring, what is depressing—
  Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend referred to anchoring. Did he have the opportunity to read an article in The Sunday Times supplement some months ago? In the last paragraph, the correspondent wrote:
  "Every Hong Kong immigrant I met in Canada raised two points with me. The first was to stress that no one they knew back home trusted Beijing or wanted to stay on after the handover to mainland China in 1997. The second was to ask when I thought Britain would open its doors to admit the 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese who are currently entitled to that famous blue passport."
  How do the comments of that correspondent, who has been to Canada and spoken to many immigrants from Hong Kong, fit in with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)? The two points seem to be in conflict.
  Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend's intervention demonstrates the wisdom of taking the advice that I once read in a business guide about managing a business. Under advice on the composition of the board of directors, it stated that it was useful to have someone on the board who knew where the factory was. I have always believed that, in that context, the best thing to do—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Norris: The best thing to do is—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Norris: I will be infinitely more polite than my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and give way in a second.
  The best thing to do is to go and look for oneself. If we do that, we must weigh the conflicting opinions. One opinion is that we cannot trust Peking and that anyone with any sense wants to get out of Hong Kong. According to that opinion, there are 3·25 million people waiting to sweep across the border.
  The conflicting opinion was the recurring one that I heard in Hong Kong. In fact I heard this from many people who have no direct interest in the matter because they already have British passports. They had absolutely no axe to grind. The conflicting opinion is that people accept that times will be difficult, but times difficult or otherwise are nothing new in Hong Kong. They lived through 1967. I do want to make a Second Reading speech, although I am in danger of doing so in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). Suffice it to say that the conflicting opinion is that times might be difficult, but

  385
  people are happy to be in Hong Kong. They believe that what they want and what Britain will want to facilitate, in view of the substantial financial commercial interests in Hong Kong—interests that are infinitely understated—is an anchoring package.
  It is ironic that the Bill anchors a substantial number of vital people, but in the group of spouses highlighted in the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) there is a fatalism about the necessity to leave Hong Kong.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give me one good reason why, if those people are so uncomplimentary about this country, we should make any effort on their behalf, as opposed to the very honourable people who are wives of British citizens who have more right to come here? Why should we bother about the others—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend and I may have to disagree about the merits or otherwise of the package. I would be straying into a Second Reading debate if I was to give my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) a full answer. However, I am glad of her support, as I understand it, for the new clause and the amendments.
  Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland highlighted an important lacuna in the present proposals. We should consider that point for three reasons. First, the numbers involved are tiny. We should be clear that we are talking about 200 or 300 or perhaps a few more.
  Secondly, the vulnerability of the widows is something that we should be prepared to recognise because they are widows of British citizens. Finally, it is nonsense to produce an anchoring package in which the one group of people who will not be anchored are, ironically, British citizens with ethnic Chinese spouses.
  Those people have told me time and again—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock can take some comfort from this—that they will have to leave Hong Kong because they cannot trust to fate and assume that their wives will be able to enter as conveniently as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary suggested, and will be able to obtain citizenship and be hale and hearty throughout.
  For those reasons, we should support the measures. I hope that the opinions expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will find favour with the Home Secretary. If I were to choose between the measures, I would favour that in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, because the introduction of a time period to eliminate the artificial marriage—clearly the device marriage could be used in this context; it is not an unknown technique—is valuable. We should pursue that matter, and perhaps the compromise of a time being served in Hong Kong rather than here, or a simple eligibility period based on the durability of a marriage, would suffice.
  With those comments, I strongly commend the principle behind the new clauses to the House.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wish to speak to new clause 5, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), but before doing so I shall comment
  386
  on some remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Morris), who may have harboured the same reservations about this matter as I did before I went to Hong Kong.
  Mr. Skinner: You went on a trip, did you?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I went to Hong Kong to find the truth and to establish in my mind that what I was doing here in the House of Commons was the right thing to do in all the circumstances. That is why I shall speak on several amendments and voice the concerns that were expressed to me by people in the colony.
  During my recent visit, one of the groups that I was able to meet was an organisation called the Concerned Expatriates Society. That group of people came to me in a most distressed state, worried about undertakings that had been given to Parliament by Ministers, expressing the view that those undertakings were insufficient in so far as they might not fully realise or deal with their concerns. I asked them to set out a statement that I could bring to the House, setting out their reservations in their words. That statement is expressed in the most moderate language, and I hope that the Minister is willing to consider it.
  The group said:
  "Under current legislation our spouses lose even the 'right' to enter Britain for settlement purposes should we die whilst still in Hong Kong. The risk exists therefore that families could be separated as a result of our death since any children would of course be full British citizens. The Home Secretary has however recently made an announcement that he recognises this particular situation and is making 'special provision for people in such circumstances'".
  They say:
  "We assume that this means that in the event of our death our spouses will in theory be permitted to settle in Britain. However, we wonder what procedures would be necessary before the surviving spouse could exercise this option, and how long would it take before the paperwork would be completed? We wonder what the situation would be in the case of an emergency. For example, if a British husband dies leaving a widow in Hong Kong with the children at school in Britain would the widow have the absolute right to return immediately to Britain to be with her children and to deal with necessary arrangements? What assurance could be given that she would not under any circumstances be denied entry in such a situation and that she would not need to rely on the discretion of the duty immigration officer. Would she be forced into the position of having to claim she was a tourist in order to ensure entry, but put herself at risk by not having disclosed her true intentions at immigration?
  It is not clear whether this 'provision' relates only to spouses who hold BDTC or BNO passports. Hence those spouses of other nationalities may be denied even this encouragement."
  They go on:
  "After our death the risk of prejudice, or worse, exists against a surviving spouse"—
  this is an important matter—
  "and possibly the children, as a result of their connection with Britain.
  The very real concern remains that any 'concession' granted now may subsequently be modified, restricted or reversed by the current or future Government and hence that there is no reliable assurance that our spouses really will be permitted to enter Britain after our death.
  As a result of our anxieties … British subjects in this position are reappraising their commitment to Hong Kong and are considering whether the risks of staying here are worth taking. In many cases the decision will be that it is in the best interets of the family to leave, while they can, and (subject to the vagaries of the settlement clearance process …) resettle in Britain in order that the three year qualifying period can take place. Hence, even though the Official position is that our spouses have the 'absolute right' to enter

  387
  Britain during our lifetime, and even though after our death they may be eligible for some 'provision' to enter Britain, the reality is that … few people in this position will feel assured that their spouses really will be protected in any eventuality.
  Whilst the 'provision' referred to by the Home Secretary was no doubt an attempt in good faith to provide adequate assurance to those of us in this position we are afraid that it will most likely have a counter productive effect. Whilst many families in this position have already made the decision to return to Britain in recent year, many of us have remained in the hope that some real, irrevocable and totally reliable assurance would be given to us. Now that we know that this is not the case we know that more and more of us will reach the reluctant conclusion that, for our families' sake, the risks are not worth taking, and that hence a growing number of families will return to Britain over the next few years."
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not sure whether in the letter from concerned expatriates, the hon. Gentleman was referring to widows or the perceived difficulties of bringing a non-British wife home. If it was the latter, it seems illogical to bring a non-British wife to Britain in case one cannot bring a British non-wife to Britain. If it is the former, an assurance has been given that the non-British wife of a British expatriate will be admitted to this country.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister's words in Hansard will be scrutinised closely by people in Hong Kong, particularly the group to whom I have referred. I shall pass the Minister this document after the debate and perhaps he could write through me or directly to them, setting out the position in detail. If he could give me that undertaking now from the Dispatch Box, it would do much to allay the anxieties of people in Hong Kong.
  Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saw the chairman of the British expatriates and a couple of his colleagues yesterday and undertook to write to him on this subject, so it would probably be more useful if the letter came from the Home Secretary than from me.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I give way to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris).
  Mr. Norris: While the hon. Gentleman listened to the Minister, did he understand that the points made by the expatriates has been satisfied, or did he share my understanding, which may be deficient, that the Minister spoke about rights of entry, not rights of citizenship? Does he agree that, if the Minister spoke about rights of entry, we are back to what was said on Second Reading, which, evidently, is so unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister seems to be indicating that, on the question of citizenship, some concession has been made. I am sure that he would wish to clarify that position. The Minister has shaken his head. He has not done so. I am sure that whatever letter he writes will be studied closely by the people of Hong Kong.
  I hope that the anxieties expressed by people when we were in Hong Kong are noted by the Minister. The people who came to see us were distressed and worried. They were few in number and they need reassurance.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Tebbit: I should begin by saying what an interesting speech we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). I think I am right in saying, Mr. Speaker, if I may introduce you to my hon. Friend, that my hon. Friend is a car dealer. I thought that car dealers usually sold things to other people rather than
  388
  being sold things as easily as he appears to have been sold the idea. The next time that I wish to sell a car, I shall go to him, although I might have to go via Hong Kong to make the deal.
  Mr. Norris: I should rather describe myself as one of the last honest stockbrokers left. I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that, in essence, that is what we do. We broke stock between people who do not want it and people who do and make an honest return on it. In that context, it seems perfectly reasonable that those of us who are capable of being persuaded by the silken words of my profession might occasionally be vulnerable to listening to logic and learning something from it.
  Mr. Tebbit: I hope that my hon. Friend has not been sold a pup, as sometimes happens in the trade.
  As I look at the general shape of the Bill, with my objections undiminished by anything that I have heard, I would regard it as monstrously unfair if the new clause was not accepted by my hon. Friend the Minister. First, the numbers are relatively small and, as the new clause is drafted, the numbers would fall within the total of 50,000 which is written into the Bill. We should not worry unduly about the numbers point one way or the other. The question that we must consider is whether the Government are being fair to these people.
  There is an element of equity in the new clause towards people who are British subjects and British citizens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Channon) said, if the purpose of the Bill is to persuade people to stay in Hong Kong, one can be darned certain that the new clause is the one part of the Bill that will work. I do not believe that the rest of it would work, but this part is essential if that is the object of the Bill.
  Yet my hon. Friend the Minister seems to find difficulty in agreeing to it. The argument against the new clause which my hon. Friend will probably adduce is that the position of wives and widows of British subjects in Hong Kong would be put on a basis different from that of similar people in other places overseas. My hon. Friend the Minister nods his head. I am glad that I understood him correctly.
  We are not talking about people throughout the world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, we are dealing with a special circumstance. If we intended to deal with people in Hong Kong in the same way as we deal with people in the rest of the world, we could pack up and go home without bothering to reach the dubious stage of giving a Third Reading to the Bill. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench are creating a special deal, a special package, a special way of dealing with people from Hong Kong. That deal is so special that, under these provisions, a bunch of people in Hong Kong who are not responsible to the House will be franchised to fulfil the role of the Home Secretary in granting citizenship. If we are going to go that far, can we not make a teeny-weeny little exception for those British people and their spouses of non-British origin? The Government seem to have swallowed a whole legion of camels and yet are now straining on a gnat—and in any event, the gnat was far more worthy than the camels that are being driven through by the Whips Office tonight.
  Therefore, when it seems that the House is united—right across the political spectrum and both political parties, and when even I can agree with the hon. Members

  389
  for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and with the Labour Front Bench —I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider whether it is possible or conceivable that they have got it wrong and the rest of us have got it right.
  I hope that they will not test this matter in the Lobbies, because even if they win tonight—and they might—after the arguments that have been put, I believe that, by the time the Bill gets to another place, my right hon. and hon. Friends may suffer the humiliation of having to return to this House with their tails between their legs to ask the House to undo an amendment made in another place as a result of tonight's debate.
  Finally, we are not really anxious about which of the amendments my hon. Friend accepts or about whether he simply says that he entirely and absolutely accepts their purpose and that he will draft a better amendment. We are not fussed or worried about that, because, when the Bill comes back at a later stage and on another day, as I am sure is the Government's intention, a better amendment could be tabled. However, as the amendments stand at the moment, I prefer those which have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West to those tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland because by setting the operative date—indeed, the deadline—as the date on which the Bill will come into effect, they obviate any problems about trying to judge in future whether a marriage has been made for the primary purpose. That would be helpful.
  Therefore, I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department makes his speech, accepting the view of the House on these amendments, he will say that that will be the shape of the amendment that the Government will bring forward.
  Mr. Janman: I begin by referring to the recent exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about what a car salesman or his customers should or should not buy. I must advise my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that if he were to write to me, inviting me to visit his showroom and telling me that he would pay my fares to his showroom and back to my home, and that when I got there he would show me a draft design of a car on a piece of paper but say that the factory that would make the car would not be built for another seven years, I would have some serious doubts about the product that he was trying to sell me—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: That is scurrilous.
  Mr. Norris: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is not implying that whoever financed my visit to Hong Kong would have been capable of influencing my opinions for that reason. If he is, I hope that in the next few moments he will construct a form of words that makes it clear that he withdraws any such imputation, because I not only reject but resent what he has said.
  Mr. Janman: All that I am saying is that—
  Mr. Sedgemore: Withdraw.
  Mr. Janman: I shall certainly withdraw those comments if my hon. Friend has taken offence at them or has slightly misunderstood them. What I am trying to say to my hon. Friend is that there is a certain analogy. If any hon. Member chooses to go to Hong Kong at the invitation of the Hong Kong Government, it is obvious that the Hong Kong Government are asking that hon. Members go there to show or to tell him or her things —and the Hong Kong Government will decide what is heard and seen—that they hope will be a factor when the hon. Member makes up his or her mind about how to vote on the Bill. I do not think that that is an unreasonable assertion and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest will not have a problem with it.
  I welcome and support the new clauses which have been tabled and introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I agree with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that an ethnic Chinese person who has an ethnic Chinese wife will be eligible under the Bill to gain citizenship while a British citizen who has an ethnic Chinese wife will not.
  There are other amendments in the group of new clauses and amendments before us which are designed to highlight to the House, which is already aware of the fact, and to the British people as a whole that the Bill is not, as is sometimes described or sometimes perceived by my constituents, at any rate, about giving citizenship to 50,000 Chinese. In fact, it is about citizenship for, on a conservative estimate, 225,000 Hong Kong Chinese. Given the age profile of the 225,000 who will take up the scheme —under the selection procedure extra points will be given to those aged between 30 and 40 years while points will be taken from those who are under 30 or over 60—I suspect that within 10 or 15 years of taking up the scheme we shall see the Hong Kong Chinese population increase to about 400,000 or 500,000. I ask the House to bear with me in the sense that I wish to assume that there will not be an anchor of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest postulated.
  It is worth referring again to the article that appeared in the supplement to The Sunday Times. It described in some detail—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is among the very few in this place who persist in pushing the myth that all of the 225,000 will come to Britain. They will not come to Britain. It is clear to those of us who have been to Hong Kong that they will not come. I regret that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends did not enjoy the experience of those of us who went to Hong Kong and heard the case of the Hong Kong Chinese. If he had had that experience, he would not be making his speech this evening. He is provoking unnecessary hysteria among the public in an absence of knowledge of the truth and the reality.
  Mr. Janman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see some irony in what I am about to say. I was not invited to go to Hong Kong. I hope that that fact will neutralise any offence that was not meant to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. If I had been invited, I would have gone. I was not criticising my hon. Friend for going to Hong Kong. Similarly, I was not criticising the terms upon which he went. If I had been invited to go there to see what the Hong Kong Government wanted to show me and to

  391
  hear what they had to tell me, I would have gone. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that my previous remarks were not meant to offend him in any way.
  It has been said already that these matters are for individual opinion and judgment. Many hon. Members share my view about what will happen. I remind the hon. Member For Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) of the remarks that I quoted earlier from the article that appeared in the supplement to The Sunday Times. A correspondent went to Canada and spoke to many Hong Kong Chinese who had recently lived in Hong Kong, who still had relatives there, and who were in constant communication with Hong Kong. They told him that basically no one in the colony trusted the regime in Peking. They said that most people wanted to get out of Hong Kong as soon as possible. They all wanted to know when Great Britain would legislate to admit 3·25 million people.
  Mr. Marlow: I listened carefully to the intervention of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He may be right—circumstances in China may change—or he may be wrong. What we should consider is the potential liability that may arise from our passing the Bill, and my hon. Friend is, I think, right to address himself to that.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend is echoing comments made on other occasions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. If we are to issue an insurance policy, we must be prepared to underwrite that policy in full.
  The 1981 Act already allows considerable flexibility in regard to Hong Kong: the £200,000 rule, for example, would let in, at the Home Secretary's discretion, a considerable number of people with the ability to make substantial investments in this country, and section 4(5) already caters for senior Crown servants. By passing the Bill, however, the House will put into law a cast-iron guarantee. Although I respect the analysis of the hon. Member for Workington—after all, he has spent a few days in Hong Kong, and I have not been there at all—I cannot, on the basis of what I have heard and read, agree with his assessment of the position.
  Two Canadian cities, Vancouver and Toronto, have accepted large numbers of economic migrants from Hong Kong. According to Wolfgang Lippert, general manager of the National Real Estate company in Vancouver,
  "The middle class in Hong Kong are wealthy people as fare as Canadians are concerned. A million dollars in family assets is the bottom end of the white collar range."
  That wealth has led to an extensive buying up of property, which in turn has meant a 50 per cent. rise in the price of property on the west side of the city over the past 12 months. The resulting major distortion of the housing market has not gone down at all well with the residents of Vancouver.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford hinted earlier, the way in which the Chinese like to do things sometimes clashes with the customs of the indigenous population. The article quotes Mr. Jonathan Chin, a Chinese Canadian, as saying:
  "Canadians still believe in honesty in business."
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The new clause deals specifically with spouses.
  392
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) may wish to raise other matters, but will you ensure that he does not raise them on this new clause?
  Mr. Speaker: My attention was temporarily distracted while I was looking at the next group of amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stay in order.
  Mr. Janman: I think that I am in order, Mr. Speaker. Some of the new clauses and amendments seek to highlight the fact that the Bill is not simply about 50,000 heads of household being given passports; it is about their spouses and families as well. Far more people are involved, and that is the issue that I am addressing.
  Another Chinese Canadian is quoted as saying:
  "In Hong Kong there is no sense of community. There is money and family and that's it."
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman leave this to me? The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has tabled a group of amendments, and he is addressing himself to them.
  Mr. Janman: The problems that I have been describing are causing a number of difficulties in Canada. It is fair to say that the Canadian people have always had a long tradition and history of tolerance, but that tolerance is being strained.
  The article quotes a number of people expressing a great deal of intolerance and frustration about the effects of this large presence of Hong Kong Chinese in Canada and, in particular, Vancouver and Toronto, and the effects that that is having.
  Sandra Wilking, the first Chinese alderman ever to be elected to Vancouver city council, was quoted as saying:
  "Immigration is the most volatile issue in this country."
  Mary Lavin, a previously apolitical office worker, started the Residents Save Vancouver Please group in early 1989 in a bid to modify Canadian policies on immigration policies towards Hong Kong. She said:
  "What is happening in Canada has not been matched since the white people took the land from the Indians … We think we are about to become Indians."
  That woman is a reserved and delicate young woman who, according to the correspondent who wrote the piece in The Sunday Times, is a long way from being the closet racist that one feared to meet.
  Betty Tangye is a soft-spoken piano teacher without a mean, let alone a racist, bone in her body. She is one of the leading campaigners against the effect that Hong Kong immigration has had on middle-class housing. I have already outlined the distortions in the housing market that are happening.
  What has been happening in Vancouver and Toronto will happen on a much larger scale in our towns and cities, particularly in the south-east of England. If 225,000 people take up British citizenship and come here, the political reality is that there will not be a corresponding relaxation of our planning laws and green belt restrictions in London and the south-east. Distortions similar to those that occurred in Vancouver and Toronto will occur in the housing market in London and the south-east.
  For those reasons, I support new clause 4 and the new clauses and amendments grouped with it.
  Mr. Foulkes: It now falls upon me to say a few words on behalf of the official Opposition.
  Sir William Clark: Speak up.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have never had that complaint before. It must be irony, even at this late hour. I had not expected the debate to be this late, but here we are.
  First, on behalf of the Opposition, and I am sure on behalf of all hon. Members, I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) not only on tabling the new clause but on speaking so passionately and in such an informed, relevant and convincing way, which is much more than we can say for the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
  I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the almost unique feat of uniting the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, the liberal Tories and the not-so-liberal Tories. If I were the Minister, who sat tolerantly and patiently through the Committee's proceedings, I would feel that not just the arguments, but the weight of support for those arguments is on our side—or, I should say, on the right hon. Gentleman's side.
  The Minister may recall that in Committee the Opposition tabled a number of amendments along the lines of the new clauses and the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who is taking a well-earned rest, argued the case convincingly. I thought that the Minister had taken the arguments and had understood and appreciated the concern among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, now expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The Opposition did not table the amendments on Report because the right hon. Gentleman was in before us and we thought that a former Cabinet Minister, a distinguished member of the Conservative party, would have greater weight with the Home Secretary and the Government.
  Mr. John McFall: Stop buttering him up.
  Mr. Foulkes: I try my hardest—we want to win something. We hoped that the arguments of those hon. Members would have some effect upon the Government.
  We went through all the arguments in Committee and we got some assurances, but like the right hon. Member for Southend, West we do not consider those assurances adequate, and nor do concerned expatriates and the other groups representing widows or potential widows in Hong Kong.
  Mr. Marlow: I hope that I am not interrupting the flow of the hon. Gentleman's speech and that I have intervened at the right time. It will be interesting for the House to know at this stage whether the hon. Gentleman will be voting for the amendment and, if so, will his party be with him?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am hoping that there will be no need for a vote. I hope that the weight of the argument and the
  394
  force of the speech by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—who put a convincing case in an honest and sympathetic way—and the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southend, West, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats will convince the Government, and that there will be no need for a Division. It seems wasteful when the arguments are so overwhelming.
  The essential point is that people are still worried. Despite the assurances, or because of the specific and limited nature of the assurances, given by the Minister and repeated again today in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), hon. Members are still worried that those widows, who are vulnerable in a number of ways, will still have to go through the hoops of the primary purpose rule to obtain entry to and citizenship of the United Kingdom.
  If that is not the case, it is up to the Under-Secretary of State to say so, because that remains our understanding of the position. If widows are going to be accepted, there is no reason why the Government should not accept new clauses 4 and 5.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Let us suppose that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is unable to accept the amendments. Why is the hon. Gentleman unable to bring his party with us through the Lobby to ensure that this valuable amendment is made?
  Mr. Foulkes: We shall have to wait to see whether a Division is called. If the Government are not convinced, we shall see what happens. I am surprised that a Conservative Member with such a distinguished military tradition should be giving in so easily, and that he should be so unwilling to press the case on the Government. I am surprised that an hon. Member who is normally so loyal to the Government should be so desperate or worried that the Government will not accept the logic and sense of the arguments, and that they will not recognise the overwhelming support for the new clauses.
  We are talking about a small group of people—a few hundred. Hong Kong is a territory—I prefer the word, although some people use the term "colony"—for which we have a special responsibility. We are testing the sincerity of the Government over this group of widows, who have more right than any other group of people included in the scheme to entry into the United Kingdom and to citizenship. They have supported their husbands, often in the service of the Crown and the territory of Hong Kong. They are worthy of our support.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary is feeling some unease at the way in which he has been criticised from all sides today, and at the fact that pleas have come from both sides of the House for him to accept the new clauses. With the Home Secretary beside him, I hope that he has all the authority and approval that he needs to be able to say that he accepts the new clauses. Then some honour and dignity will have been sacrificed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sacrificed?"] It is late. I shall try again. Then some honour and dignity will have been salvaged from this debate.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) are both proposing, albeit in different ways, that spouses and widows of British citizens resident in Hong Kong should be granted British citizenship, but I am afraid, as they expected and as I explained in Committee, that the Government do not believe that such a provision in the bill could be justified.
  It is central to our proposals that existing nationality principles should continue to operate normally, except in relation to the 50,000 key personnel selected under the Bill and their immediate families. On that point, at least, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was right in predicting my reaction, but no doubt he had read what I said in Committee.
  The whole basis of the British Nationality Act 1981 is that the acquisition of citizenship should normally involve a period of residence in this country. For the spouse of a British citizen, that period of residence is three years instead of the normal five. It is designed to ensure that the non-British spouse has some links with the United Kingdom, independent of marriage. The amendment would represent a fundamental departure from that principle.
  My right hon. Friend suggests that there is cause for concern about the position of non-British spouses in Hong Kong. I listened with great care to what he said. Yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I met my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and the chairman of the Concerned British Expatriates Society. I regret to say that I do not think that they made out a case for British expatriates in Hong Kong to be regarded as a special case compared with British expatriates elsewhere in the world.
  Mr. Foulkes: There are two overwhelming arguments why their case must be considered separately. First, the Bill deals specifically with Hong Kong. Secondly, it is a dependent territory, not a separate country. Surely those two arguments must convince even this Government.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that they do. The only distinction that can be made relates to those expatriate citizens in Hong Kong who are married to non-British wives. They are concerned about their widows, should they die, because Hong Kong's status will change in 1997. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend gave the assurance that he did on Second Reading.
  We understand and sympathise with the very natural anxieties that have been expressed. I say again that, after careful consideration, we are sure that the expatriates' anxieties are groundless. I should like to take a few moments to explain how the position of spouses of British citizens is safeguarded. The spouse of a British citizen can accompany the British partner to the United Kingdom for settlement at any time. Of course they have to satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules, which include the primary purpose and the maintenance and accommodation requirements, but it is wrong to suggest that these reasonable and universal requirements under our immigration laws pose a significant difficulty for Hong Kong's expatriate families.
  We have done some research, and the figures speak for themselves. Last year, for example, according to the most
  396
  recent statistics, 269 spouses of British citizens applied for settlement from Hong Kong; only four were refused. None of those four was the spouse of a British citizen who was resident in Hong Kong.
  The Government accept that there is legitimate concern that spouses having no right of abode in a third country might become stranded in Hong Kong in the event of the death of the British partner. In the unique circumstances of Hong Kong, it is natural that the expatriate community should be anxious about the position of widowed spouses, and with some reason. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has therefore given an assurance that applies specifically to British citizens in Hong Kong, that the widowed spouse of a British citizen who was resident in the territory at the time of his or her death will be allowed to settle here as a concession outside the immigration rules.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked about the primary purpose test. As the spouse will have died, the ordinary primary purpose rule could not apply, and we would not seek to apply it. So the concession is there for widows who fall into that category.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister saying that there will be no problem in the case of the widowed spouses to whom we are referring, that they will be allowed freely to enter the United Kingdom to settle, and that there will be no immigration problems?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is the undertaking. The only question may be whether the spouse is the widow of a British expatriate citizen. The identity of the person and their relationship by marriage to a former British citizen will be matters that it would be reasonable of an immigration officer to ask to be demonstrated. But there should be no difficulty with that.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister saying that all that those widowed spouses will have to produce, in effect, is proof of marriage?
  Mr. Lloyd: Proof of marriage and proof that the person to whom they were married was a British citizen resident in Hong Kong.
  Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend's remarks will be studied with immense interest in Hong Kong, so I would like to get this straight. Is not his assurance limited to widowed spouses who have no other citizenship? Therefore, in the case of a United Kingdom citizen having a non-United Kingdom spouse who is not Hong Kong Chinese but who might be Japanese, Filipino, Thai, or whatever, that spouse would not be covered. What assurance is there for those widows?
  Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right. Such widowed spouses were not included in the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend. However, we should like to consider some of the further points that my right hon. Friend has raised.
  Mr. Foulkes: We welcome the Minister's assurance that such widows will have to produce proof only that they were married to a British citizen—such as a marriage certificate—and a death certificate. That presumably means that the Government have abandoned—we welcome this—the primary purpose test. It will be interesting to know what powers the Government are using to do so.
  Mr. Lloyd: It would be difficult to apply the primary purpose rule if the lady's husband has died. The authority lies with my right hon. and learned Friend, under the 1971 Act, to use his discretion and to allow entry outside the rules. Helpfully, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) echoed that undertaking, saying that it would be carried forward if there was another Labour Government.
  Mr. Madden: May we be clear whether the widowed spouses in question will be allowed to enter the United Kingdom for settlement, or merely permitted to enter and be required subsequently to make an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am trying to remember the exact terms of my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking, but I believe it is for settlement. Within a certain period those people will then be able to apply for British citizenship, and there is no question but that their entitlement will be to come here and stay here.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) the Minister appeared to say that this would not apply to widows who had another citizenship. What will happen to someone who has children at school in this country and who has had no connection with Indonesia, Thailand or wherever? He or she will be cut off and stranded.
  Mr. Lloyd: If such people have another citizenship, they will have that connection. As I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, that is a point which my right hon. and learned Friend and I want to look at again. I have been trying to make it clear that the assurance that my right hon. and learned Friend has given applies only to whose who have no citizenship other than British dependent territories or Hong Kong—and hence Chinese—citizenship.
  Mr. Marlow: The intention behind the Bill is to anchor people in Hong Kong, and the intention of the new clause is to anchor some worthy but potentially unfortunate people in Hong Kong. If people are given their British citizenship now, they know they have it, and whatever else happens, they will be able to use it. But if a spouse were to die after 1997, when a Chinese regime was running the country, they might fear some difficulty in acquiring British citizenship at that stage. Thus the desire of the Government and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to anchor these people in Hong Kong will not be achieved unless the new clause is accepted.
  Mr. Lloyd: If I understand my hon. Friend aright, my answer is that there is no limit to my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance: it will apply up to and after 1997.
  Mr. Wells: Just for the sake of clarity, will my hon. Friend reiterate that this will not apply in other dependent territories, of which there are quite a few in the Caribbean?
  Mr. Lloyd: It applies only to Hong Kong, for which we make this exception because we understand the worries of expatriates in the colony who fear that their wives may be stranded there after 1997. Hong Kong is a special case in that respect. I could not concede the earlier amendments
  398
  because I do not believe that Hong Kong can be described as a special case before 1997, in respect of living British expatriates and their wives.
  Mr. Tebbit: I ask my hon. Friend to contemplate the arguments that he has been deploying this evening. In response to many points put to him, he has argued that the Bill is designed not to bring immigrants to the United Kingdom but to give them an assurance that will obviate the necessity for them to come here. But on this particular point, my hon. Friend says that we cannot give these people the assurance of a British passport while they are still in Hong Kong; we must make them come to Britain and live here for three years before they can apply to get one.
  Does not my hon. Friend realise that, with each word he has said while defending himself against the reasonable points put to him today, he has hammered another intellectual nail into the shabby coffin of this rotten Bill?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course I do not accept that. British expatriates, confident in their British citizenship, are not in the same position as those who are not British citizens but will become so under this Bill. I recognise that the Bill, in granting immediate access to British citizenship to the spouses of the 50,000 key persons, would be treating them more favourably than the spouses of other British citizens, but it is inherent in our proposals that the beneficiaries of the Bill will receive favoured treatment.
  11 pm
  I can appreciate the understandable irritation of British citizens with non-British wives that the normal rules should continue to apply to their wives when there is an express service for the spouses of those chosen under the selection scheme, but the House will be familiar with the justification for it. I have said several times this evening, and it was said in Committee and on Second Reading, that the Bill is an exceptional measure directed at a specific group of people, who by definition are essential to Hong Kong and are leaving in large numbers. Those people, unlike the spouses of existing British citizens, have no well established route to the United Kingdom or anywhere else. We feel that a different approach is justified.
  If spouses and existing children are excluded from the assurance package, as proposed in some of the amendments, some recipients would still feel the need to emigrate to secure the position of their families. Some of the amendments make illogical suggestions that would drive away those whom we wish to remain in Hong Kong. The rules applying to the non-British wives of expatriates would not do that.
  Mr. Norris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is clearly implied in the scheme for 200,000 passports that it would not be enough to grant only the head of household a British passport and expect the rest of the family to rely on the rules that he has outlined as they apply to non-British spouses, and that that rule will apply to one category of people—those who are now British citizens? If that is indeed the Government's position, it is extraordinarily anomalous.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is not extraordinarily anomalous because, as I said earlier, the expatriate British citizen will have the confidence of the British citizenship with which he was born and the knowledge that British citizens, as long as they satisfy the normal immigration rules, can bring their

  399
  wives here. There is no such confidence among people who have been given citizenship under the scheme, and to protect the investment that we are making in them, we are extending, it beyond the normal rules to their wives and children.
  Even my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) would accept that, although those who obtain British citizenship through the selection scheme could, like a British expatriate, bring their wives under the same terms, it does not apply to children who have been born to them when they were not British citizens. Somehow we must deal with that. The good sense of what we are proposing is to make a clean sweep, to enable them to be confident that their family has British citizenship, and to give them the confidence they need to remain in Hong Kong.
  The Government are approaching this logically. The under-age children of people who obtain British citizenship through the selection route would, unless citizenship were granted to their families at the same time, be tempted to move here to ensure that their children earn British citizenship by being here for sufficient time before they reach the age of 18. After 18, under our normal rules, they would not be eligible.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend make the position tatally clear to the House? There are two gentleman, one of whom is a British citizen with a non-British wife and the other, who will be given one of these passports by the Governor and will become a British citizen, who also has a non-British wife. Both couples have no children. Is my hon. Friend saying that the wife of the first gentleman will not automatically become a British citizen, whereas the wife of the second gentleman will automatically become a British citizen?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has followed the argument reasonably well and I am glad that he has been able to demonstrate that fact. I said—my hon. Friend did not repeat this part of the argument—that this legislation is a special enactment for a unique set of circumstances. It cannot follow our normal nationality rules, and that is why it is different. The same rules apply to people in Hong Kong who have been born British citizens and have moved abroad as apply to those who live in Borneo, Indonesia and the United States. I do not believe that the case has been made for treating them differently. I am afraid that I must therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for receiving the deputation. It was very helpful, and my hon. Friend will have been made aware of the worries that still exist in Hong Kong. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about widows, which may foreshadow some concessions.
  I think that I carry the House with me when I say that no hon. Member supports the Government's view on spouses. On the Conservative Benches, those who support the Bill and those who are against it are against him. Everyone on the Opposition Benches—Labour Members and the Social and Liberal Democrats—is against him. I shall be surprised if this matter is not fully debated in another place.
  My hon. Friend said that this was a unique set of circumstances which justifies the wives of these people getting passports too. I claim that it is a unique set of
  400
  circumstances for British citizens and their non-British spouses. I have failed to convince my hon. Friend, which places me in a difficulty. I have no particular desire to divide the House or rebel against the Government, but I am in the hands of the House. If hon. Members wish to press the motion to a Division, I shall join them.
  Question put, That the clause be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 253.

  Division No. 232]

  [11.07 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Livsey, Richard

  Alton, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McFall, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Madden, Max

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Marek, Dr John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Carr, Michael

  Murphy, Paul

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Nellist, Dave

  Clelland, David

  Parry, Robert

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Patchett, Terry

  Cryer, Bob

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dalyell, Tam

  Robertson, George

  Darling, Alistair

  Rogers, Allan

  Dewar, Donald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Dixon, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fearn, Ronald

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Spearing, Nigel

  Flynn, Paul

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Foster, Derek

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Foulkes, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fraser, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Gill, Christopher

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Turner, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wallace, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Howells, Geraint

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Rbodri Morgan and Mr. John Hume Robertson.

  Leighton, Ron

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Allason, Rupert

  Benyon, W.

  Amess, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ashby, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  401

  Brazier, Julian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Bright, Graham

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Irvine, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Jack, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Key, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Churchill, Mr

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Knowles, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lang, Ian

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Latham, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Couchman, James

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Curry, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lilley, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Favell, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mans, Keith

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maples, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Forth, Eric

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mates, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Franks, Cecil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Freeman, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fry, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mellor, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mills, Iain

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gow, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Ground, Patrick

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hague, William

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hannam, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hayward, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James

  Portillo, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Raffan, Keith

  Holt, Richard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Redwood, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  402

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tredinnick, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walden, George

  Shelton, Sir William

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitney, Ray

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Robin

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stevens, Lewis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. David Lightbown.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

  UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE
  'The Secretary of State shall not register any British citizens under this Act until such time as the membership of the Hong Kong Legislative Council is elected by universal franchise of all Hong Kong citizens over the age of 18 years.'. —[Mr. Foulkes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 50, in clause 5, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
  '(4A) The Secretary of State shall not make such an order until after an election has taken place in Hong Kong for the Legislative Council in which over 50 per cent. of the members are directly elected, by adult universal suffrage.".
  Mr. Foulkes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This new clause is completly different from the other measures, which were intended to try to bring some much-needed improvements to a bad scheme in a bad Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) amply demonstrated earlier. The new clause is a device to initiate a debate on democracy in Hong Kong. It serves to reaffirm our view that the Government are approaching the matter of confidence, stability and prosperity in Hong Kong in entirely the wrong way.
  We do not accept that giving a bolt hole to an elite group in any way resolves the fundamental problem of confidence, which affects all the people of Hong Kong, whether they are British dependent territory passport holders or whether they are covered by the scheme. The Government should approach the matter in an entirely different way.

  403
  The correct approach is to deal with the matter as a foreign policy issue, as a diplomatic issue, and not one of nationality or of immigration. A full, vibrant and active democratic system in Hong Kong is one of the three essential elements to our approach. I shall return to that point in a moment, because it is the substance of our new clause.
  We should also work for a reaffirmation by China of its belief in one country, two systems. We and the Chinese should remember that that means communism and democracy—not just communism and capitalism. Democracy is an essential part of the other system that will continue in Hong Kong as part of the one country, two systems process. The Government of China must be encouraged to indicate by their words and, more important, by their deeds over the next few years that it remains in their interests for Hong Kong to be in much the same form as it is now—a gateway to the western world. That must be the case, whatever the complexion of the Government of China.
  Recent signs of internal conflicts among the octogenarian leadership in Peking increase the prospects of changes between now and 1997, almost any outcome of which is likely to be helpful to Hong Kong. However, we recognise that, should that not be the case, we must have a fallback position. Should a crisis develop in Hong Kong, there will be an international responsibility to find a haven for Hong Kong citizens in countries that have traditionally received immigrants from the territory. Britain, however, must take the lead in ensuring the effectiveness of such a safety net provision.
  At a time when democracy has replaced the tyranny of dictatorship in most Latin American countries, and when universally in this House we greatly welcome democracy replacing the oppression of communism in eastern Europe, is it not absolutely outrageous and ridiculous that the British Government are resisting the introduction of full democracy in a territory for which we have direct responsibility? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) conceded in our debate on 19 April, successive Governments of both parties are culpable in this matter. Some cynicism from China about our motives, or those of some of us, for being enthusiastic about democracy is understandable.
  It is true that for some time the majority did not demand democracy in Hong Kong, but that does not diminish or detract from the case for full democracy or from the strong and overwhelming desire now within the colony for full democratic development. That was already growing when I visited in 1988. The Government's failure then to respond to pressure from Hong Kong and from the Labour and other opposition parties gave the wrong signals to Peking. Instead of asserting our right to govern until the end of June 1997, we were perceived to be willing to kow-tow to the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Minister denied that in Committee, but, whatever he says, we were seen to be giving the Government in China an effective veto over our decisions in a territory for which we have responsibility until the end of June 1997.
  At times, the Government have suggested that the people of Hong Kong are not sophisticated, intelligent, able or articulate enough for full democracy. That has been suggested from the Dispatch Box and from the Conservative Benches. It is manifest nonsense to anyone who has visited Hong Kong or who knows of the vibrant
  404
  democracy of the local elections for councils which have relatively little power—indeed, even less power than councils in Britain have under this Government.
  The Government have argued that the joint declaration does not give a specific guarantee of full direct elections. However, it says, even in respect of the special administrative region after 1997, that the legislative council shall be constituted by elections. What do we understand by elections, other then direct elections and the universal franchise of all adults over 18? The device of functional constituencies is a mere fraud on real democracy and involves only a small percentage of the people of Hong Kong.
  There was also a widespread perception within the territory after the signing of the joint declaration that there would be a start made to direct elections in 1988. That did not take place. Yet in Committee the Minister quibbled about whether the figure should be 18 or 20 out of the 60 seats, arguing that 18 was nearly 20 and that the difference was neither here nor there.
  In February, the Foreign Secretary spoke of a substantial element of democracy which can endure and further develop after 1997. The Opposition believe that all members of the Legislative Council should be directly elected as quickly as practicable. Indeed, that was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
  We also believe that the Chief Executive. who is effectively the Chief Minister of the Hong Kong Government, should also be elected by universal adult franchise. He or she and the Government should have their responsibility directly to the legislature clearly spelled out.
  11.30 pm
  We also believe that political parties should be not merely allowed but encouraged to operate freely in Hong Kong as quickly as possible. Incidentally, we deplore the recent arrests of political activists involved in demonstrations for democracy in Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government also deplore those arrests and are taking action with the Governor and the Government of Hong Kong to secure proper justice for those people.
  We also see no reason why the franchise should be limited to people over the age of 21 when the voting age in Britain, throughout the European Community and in most democratic countries is 18. As we heard in an earlier debate, it is the age accepted for categorising dependent relatives. We would like to see the voting age for Hong Kong elections reduced to 18.
  We would also like to see constituencies of roughly equal size. At present, one constituency is twice the size of another because of some arithmetical division.
  Mr. Maude: What about Scotland?
  Mr. Foulkes: In Scotland, the constituencies are all roughly the same size.
  Although I personally warmly welcome the decision that the voting system for the colony is to be similar to our own, that might not find favour with all my colleagues.
  Democracy in Hong Kong is vital to give new, deep, long-term confidence to all the people of the territory. It is necessary to provide the balance to and control of the capitalist system. It is an essential element of the second

  405
  system within the one country, two systems set-up of China after 1997. Democracy in Hong Kong is essential to provide maximum protection of the freedom and liberties of the people.
  We believe that the Government are heading down the wrong road with the Bill. I have outlined again today, as my colleagues did on Second Reading, a positive alternative to deal with confidence in Hong Kong. The new clause seeks to postpone the introduction of the Bill's provisions until an essential element of democracy in the territory is tackled. I have pleasure in commending it to the House. Even more, it provides us with an opportunity to discuss an important element for the future of Hong Kong —the establishment of a full, vibrant, active democracy essential for its future.
  Mr. Wells: Both China and the British Government are treaty bound to introduce elections to the legislature and elect the chief executive by 1997, so the introduction of democracy to Hong Kong has been settled despite much objection from some of my hon. Friends who claim that it is not necessary. They say that Hong Kong has existed without democracy, has been successful without it and needs to continue without it. I believe that a moment's thought given to that idea will dispell it.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) set out the reasons why democracy should be by universal sufferage. I entirely agree with him. However, without delaying the House too long at this time of night, I want to take the argument a stage further. The fact is that in Hong Kong we must replace the British Government and its officials in the form of the civil servants who play the role of Ministers in the legislature and we must make certain that all the instruments of democracy are in place so that the capitalist system can be controlled.
  However, I further believe that, without the democratic process being in place, capitalism will not work; it will descend into monopoly, corruption and chaos. Only with the accountability that is necessary to and imposed by a democratic system will Hong Kong continue to work after 1997. I believe that, with democracy firmly established, there is every reason to be confident that after 1997 Hong Kong will be successful.
  However, we in this House should know that democracy is one of the hardest systems to make work. It demands some commitment from every single elector—even if only putting a ballot paper in a box every five years. If that was all that democracy was, of course, it would not be sufficient for Hong Kong, which must develop ways to gain support for measures taken by the legislature. The idea must be established that when a majority in the legislature is in favour of a particular item, the minority who fail to win—as it looks as though those of us who hold these views will fail to win tonight—will accept and abide by the majority decisions and the rule of law.
  Such concepts take a great deal of time to root. I have had experience overseas and have found that many educated and privileged people—those principally to whom we are seeking to give 50,000 passports, and many more—are the most reluctant to take part in democracy or to breath life into the democratic institutions that must be established. That is because previously they have been privileged and have had access to powerful positions and
  406
  they do not know how to proceed. They are afraid of going out to do what we do quite naturally—knocking on people's doors and asking them to vote for us; taking account of their views and reflecting them in the legislature; and trying to gain the consent of the community for the actions that we wish to be taken.
  That process must take place as soon as possible if those institutions are to have enough credit and respect, and be cherished by the people of Hong Kong and made to work. Unless we get that system of democracy firmly established —and the earlier, the better—there will be every reason to lack confidence in the future of Hong Kong after 1997. That future will depend on whether the institutions that I have described have been put in place, have support and are working. If that happens, it will give us confidence to believe that the two systems and the second—the capitalist —system can work in Hong Kong.
  That is why it is essential that we urge, push, barge and do everything that we possibly can to get my hon. Friend the Minister to go back to the Chinese and say, "This is essential. We agreed it in principle way back in 1984 and we are telling you that unless this is established and unless we agree with the pace at which it will be established"—now agreed by OMELCO in Hong Kong—"you are putting in serious jeopardy confidence in Hong Kong up to and beyond 1997."
  There is much more to the democratic system than I have spelt out in my short speech, and I shall list only some of its facets. We need a Bill of Rights in place. We need to make certain that the legal system in Hong Kong is truly independent of the Executive and is independent of the People's Republic of China. There must be the right of final determination of the rule of law and of the matters that arise in Hong Kong at a democratic level. We need to ensure that in Hong Kong the Chief Executive is not a creature of the People's Republic of China. He must be genuinely elected and independent. He should be accountable to the legislature and able to be dismissed by it. There is a necessity for the Chief Executive, under the treaty, to be approved in Peking, but unless he is Hong Kong's man through the democratic process and not the man of the People's Republic of China, there cannot be confidence that Hong Kong can be truly independent of the People's Republic of China and able to run a capitalist system without interference.
  There is much more to be said on this subject but the hour is late and I intend to be brief. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, the People's Republic of China and all those in Hong Kong to cherish democracy and the capitalist system. There will be 5·5 million who will stay in Hong Kong whether or not the Bill is enacted. For their future, for confidence in Hong Kong and for business men there, we must establish democracy. The purpose of my amendment is to bring that democracy into line with the OMELCO wish that at least 50 per cent. of the legislature should be directly elected. The functional constituencies that are proposed will represent only 1 per cent. of the electorate yet they will have a majority in the proposed legislature up to and beyond 1997.
  For those reasons I welcome the assurances that were given in Committee and those given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he would try to get further progress on these matters from the Chinese before the election in 1995.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a pleasure for me to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I agree strongly with the views that he expressed. We may have disagreed about some aspects of the Committee's report, but on the matters that are now before us there was virtual unanimity among members of the Committee.
  It was a privilege to be a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howells) and to visit Hong Kong and China at a crucial moment. Our visit took place a year and a month or two ago, when many of the issues that we have been discussing were on the boil. We were able to hear the line of the Hong Kong establishment on democracy. We were told that the people of Hong Kong were not really interested in democracy. That was the fundamental message. It was said that they were interested in making a living, economic activity and entrepreneurial activity, and were not really interested in the concept of democracy per se and the idea that they might take part in a direct and westernised way in the democratic affairs of society.
  That seemed not to accord with the views of many of the people that we, the members of the Select Committee, met. I am talking not of OMELCO or of the establishment but of a considerable number of people, including young people, who had served or were serving at local level. They sensed and felt that there was a democratic spirit and a growing desire for genuine participation in political activity within Hong Kong in whatever peculiar form that might be discovered by Hong Kong. There was something much better and more important than the establishment line that we were being sold from the highest level.
  We might—even then—have felt some doubts about how far the argument would prevail, and about the extent of the spirit of democratic involvement in Hong Kong. All the myths were finally exploded, however, when the people of Hong Kong associated themselves with the students in Tiananmen square. Already we had seen the awakening of democratic participation, but, after Tiananmen square, no one could continue to argue that Hong Kong's political society was wholly inert.
  11.45 pm
  The Government's response to some aspects of the Select Committee's report—not those concerning issues in the Bill, such as immigration, but those raised in the new clause— was pretty banal; disgraceful, indeed. The Select Committee made two unanimous recommendations which proved to be the main areas of contention. First, it recommended the establishment of a series of safeguards to protect many of the agreements that would make the special administrative constitution so special. The Government have not dealt with that recommendation: they did not establish constitutional courts, for instance.
  At least the Government could defend themselves in that regard by arguing that the matter was part of the Chinese Basic Law, and that all that they could do was to make representations. In my opinion, they did not make enough representations, but they have, as it were, an alibi. They have no such alibi to justify their failure to develop a democratic system in Hong Kong between now and 1997.
  408
  We do not need to obtain agreement from the Chinese Government to decide the percentage of people who are directly elected to the Legislative Council in the next seven years. That is the joint responsibility of the Hong Kong and British Governments. Other aspects of our recommendations required skills of persuasion and negotiation to achieve changes in the Basic Law. There again, the Government failed. The Minister shakes his head, but there were several unfortunate failures. The achievement of democracy in Hong Kong, however, is not a function of the Chinese Basic Law; it is for Parliament, following the agreement between Hong Kong and Britain, to decide how democratic Hong Kong's institutions should be between now and 1997.
  The Government's loss of negotiating nerve will, I fear, have tragic consequences. We saw the courage of all those young people who, in Peking just over a year ago, took on the might of the Chinese authorities and suffered for it. We have seen that courage repeated a year later in Chinese universities. What guts it must have taken for hundreds of students to stand up and be counted a second time. I am sorry to say that the Government have been gutless. They completely lost their negotiating nerve when it came to developing democracy in Hong Kong between now and 1997.
  Mr. Walden: Let me put to the hon. Gentleman a question that I asked earlier. How can he reconcile the accusation of gutlessness over democracy with the accusation of recklessness vis-a-vis Peking over 50,000 Chinese citizens?
  Mr. Rowlands: I make the simple point that one area in which we do have power over the affairs of Hong Kong between now and 1997 is in deciding how democratic its institutions will be. For us to sell the pass so badly is an act of gutlessness.
  The fundamental reason given by the Government was the so-called mirror imaging and through-track that they wanted. They wanted events and institutions after 1997 to be akin to the events and institutions before 1997. I must tell the Minister that, from the Chairman downwards, the Select Committee rejected that philosophy completely. We argued strenuously that there were genuine areas where we should not attempt mirror imaging or a through-track, and that there were areas where we should establish bridgeheads of responsibility so that after 1997 the Chinese Government would have to decide whether they wanted to dismantle or change the system and its institutions. One area where we could have established a real bridgehead between now and 1997 was in the democratic institutions in Hong Kong. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is fairly irrelevant.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman says that my point is irrelevant, but my point is fundamental and it has been consistently evaded by the hon. Gentleman. It concerns the power relationship between Britain, as represented by our responsibilities in Hong Kong, and the People's Republic of China. The hon. Gentleman's entire speech has been delivered in a political vacuum. It is not simply a matter of what Britain wants. All hon. Members know that we want democracy in Hong Kong. But we cannot have the sort of democracy that we want as soon as we want it because of the power relationship between China

  409
  and Britain. There has been no hint in the hon. Gentleman's speech of that reality. Therefore, it is completely without interest or relevance.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman reflects the Foreign Office establishment. He prompted me to make that remark. I would not have done it otherwise. But as he wishes to exchange an insult or two, I shall give him one back. If the hon. Gentleman had given me a couple more minutes, I was about to say that we are in a strong position when it comes to democratic institutions. There was a loss of negotiating nerve. If a system of democracy far greater than the one proposed by the Government and accepted in the negotiations with the Chinese had been accepted, it would have put the Chinese Government on the spot in 1997.
  However great their power, would the Chinese Government in 1997 signal to Hong Kong, to its capitalist system, to the international community and to everybody outside China, that it wanted to dismantle the democratic structures in Hong Kong? What sort of signals would have gone out? How much would confidence be shaken if the Chinese Government were to say in 1997 that they would dismantle the democratic structures that had been created in Hong Kong? The British Government are in a much stronger negotiating position, as they will be between now and 1997, if they decide to establish a wider democratic system within Hong Kong, with the support of the Hong Kong people.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is wrong, because although the Basic Law is within the powers of the Chinese Government and we would have to make representations to try to change such laws, this arrangement is within our power. It can be decided by the Hong Kong and British Governments. Therefore, the Government are in a stronger position.
  The answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham is this: if we establish a more powerful and a better democratic system in Hong Kong, will it be in the interests of a Chinese Government to signal to Hong Kong, Britain and the international community in 1997 that it does not believe that those democratic institutions should exist? Would they reverse decisions taken by the British Government and the people of Hong Kong? That is why we have every right to say to the Government and to Ministers that between now and 1997 they should for goodness' sake change their minds, and have some courage and some guts, at least as regards establishing democratic institutions in Hong Kong.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Of course I am in favour of democracy, but it is worth recalling that the British Government, soon after the second world war, had plans for introducing democracy into Hong Kong. The moment the communist armies reached the frontiers of Hong Kong, those plans were put on ice, and they have never been revived by any British Government.
  The plans were put on ice for one good reason: if there were democratic elections in Hong Kong, it would put the Government in Peking into a difficult position. They would either have to accept a democratically elected anti-communist Government in Hong Kong, or they would have to use their best efforts to ensure that
  410
  communists were elected. Therefore, democracy was put on ice for years. That holds true for the position now, post-Tiananmen square.
  If we accept new clause 9 and move rapidly to full universal democracy in Hong Kong, the Communist Government in Peking would have to use their best endeavours to ensure that communist and pro-communist candidates were elected. Otherwise, it would be an intolerable loss of face. At the same time, the Government of Taiwan—I am chairman of the Anglo-Taiwan parliamentary group—would, I suspect, be using their best efforts to ensure that anti-communist candidates were elected.
  Far from producing stability, which is what hon. Members who support the amendments want, the introduction of universal democracy in Hong Kong at the moment would bring universal disorder and would set back the cause of stability.
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask for your permission to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called. I shall certainly look his way.
  Mr. Budgen: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a motion that I am prepared to contemplate at this stage.
  12 midnight
  Dr. John Marek: These are important matters that deserve the fullest consideration. Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member declared an interest as an officer of one of the parliamentary groups. I should therefore declare that I am the vice-chairman of the British Hong Kong parliamentary group.
  I support amendment No. 50 and new clause 9, which I prefer. I agree with what has been said about the new clause and the amendment. Most of the points have been made, but one significant point has not yet been made: that the Government are planning to sell Hong Kong down the river in 1997. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to retain some semblance of order and government in Hong Kong until 1997 when they will cheerfully be able to say, "We are lowering the union jack, we have all our boats ready to sail away, our aeroplanes are ready to fly away from Kai Tak airport and we will have nothing further to do with Hong Kong." In decades to come, it will be seen as one of the most shameful episodes in British colonial history. We are preparing to hand over 5 million or 6 million people to a totalitarian, non-democratic Government, to shed a lot of crocodile tears and to excuse ourselves by saying that we can do nothing about it. We cannot allow ourselves to be duped in that way.
  All that we can do is to support amendment No. 50 and new clause 9 and to give self-government to Hong Kong straight away. We should allow them to negotiate with Peking. There is no substitute for democracy and free expression—whether for the people of Hong Kong or China, or for the people of Lithuania and Latvia. I find it

  411
  difficult to understand how some Conservative Members can justify their stance on independence for the Baltic states, in view of their craven stance on Hong Kong.
  Other hon. Members share my views. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take note of what hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the new clause and amendment No. 50 have said. Under the Basic Law, as drafted, the chief executive will be a puppet of Peking. The legislature will be under Peking's control. If hon. Members care to read the small print of the Basic Law, they will find that that is so. The only way to get round the problem is to have self-government for Hong Kong as quickly as possible so that the people of Hong Kong can decide either whether they wish to be just one part of China under its present non-democratic system or whether they wish to negotiate a slightly different form of agreement with China. That should be done by the people of Hong Kong; it should not be done by us.
  Above all, we should not be prepared—which is what the Bill is all about—to sell Hong Kong down the river in 1997, with as little fuss as possible for the United Kingdom. It is absolutely shameful that the Bill is before the House tonight.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support the new clause and the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke so ably.
  I pose this question to the House: what value democracy? I entirely endorse the views of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). We on this side of the House eulogise democracy, promote democracy in central and eastern Europe, and encourage President Mikhail Gorbachev to implement a meaningful democracy in his country. We sought to aid the Filipino people in getting rid of their ex-president, President Marcos—now deceased— and we encourage that part of the world to adopt a proper, meaningful, democratic parliamentary system—full adult suffrage.
  What is the difference between some of those countries and Hong Kong? For years, I have urged the South African Administration to urge all the population groups in that country to adopt a one-man, one-vote system. Whether that is done in a unitary state or in another system does not matter.
  I believe in full adult suffrage, and I am amazed, saddened and personally disgusted that we, the British nation, are prepared through our Parliament to hand over a country for which we have been responsible for many decades to—as the hon. Member for Wrexham rightly reminded the House—a totalitarian system, with the memory of Tiananmen square still very fresh in our memories.
  I personally believe that the best way of guaranteeing the future for all the people now in Hong Kong is to give them a full, 100 per cent. democratic system well before 1997. I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I share his belief that the Chinese Administration is unlikely to seek to reverse what we have done. As he reminded the House, we have the authority and the right to implement a democratic system in Hong Kong. One hundred per cent. of the Legislative Council should be fully elected by 1997 —in my view, by 1995. Why do I say that? How do I justify that belief?
  412
  I do not believe that the People's Republic of China can do without the technology of the western world. It cannot do without the investment that the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan and other countries are prepared to pour into it, if it is to survive and make progress. I say exactly the same thing about President Gorbachev.
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made her statement yesterday, I was fortunate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye to ask a supplementary question. If perestroika and glasnost are to survive, and if President Gorbachev is to survive to carry through those policies, his country's economy must be put in order. President Gorbachev cannot do that without the assistance of the western developed nations. The Chinese leadership also need the help of the western developed nations to take their country forward.
  We have the authority, the opportunity and the moral duty to ensure that the people of Hong Kong have a system of full adult suffrage, so that they can elect 100 per cent. of the membership of the Legislative Council by 1995 —well before the date in 1997 when we hand over their sovereignty to the People's Republic of China.
  Can my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench say where else we have given, as it were, independence or relinquished responsibility for a country, and not sought first to put in place a proper democratic system and grant the vote to its adult population? I find it difficult to do so. I remind the House that we have handed over power in many countries where the people were far less able to exercise the vote in a responsible and knowledgeable way than the people of Hong Kong.
  We are using double standards. I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wrexham: we are indeed selling out the people of Hong Kong. I am ashamed to be involved with a Government who are taking this action. Why do we want to get rid of what we see as an unpleasant responsibility? The only reason for introducing the Bill, which, sad to say, I fear will become an Act, is to get out of a difficult situation with a minimum of honour. This is a disgraceful way of handing over the sovereignty of a country—of a colony that has been very loyal to this country and whose people look to us for the lead and the example that we have given the rest of the world for so many years.
  The people of Hong Kong are disgusted by the treatment being meted out to them. The Government can boast of the discussions that they have had. When I was last in Hong Kong, the people told me that they had had no meaningful consultation at the grass roots with any Government of the United Kingdom. They said that the Government did not want to talk to the millions of ordinary citizens. They are prepared to talk to one or two selected establishment figures, but to imagine that they speak with the true voice of Hong Kong is to live in a different world.
  My colleagues on the Government Front Bench may sit there smirking, thinking of the majorities that they have notched up so far during the passage of the Bill, but I still believe that there is some honour left in this House I shall not mention colleagues by name, but I prefer to match my votes to the words that I utter during a debate. This place derives its credibility and the respect that it has enjoyed in the past precisely from that. We undermine respect for this place by not speaking our minds and then by not voting along the lines of what we have said.

  413
  It is odd to find myself sharing almost entirely the views of Opposition Members, although my views are also shared by one or two of my hon. Friends. This is a shameful incident in parliamentary history in this country. We are passing a Bill that will affect the lives of 5·5 million people virtually without their having had any meaningful say in what will happen to them. As a result of the Bill, most of the 50,000 heads of families—225,000 people in all —will leave Hong Kong and come to the United Kingdom. Some will also go to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and a number of other countries.
  I should have been much happier if we had implemented full adult suffrage in Hong Kong before we handed over sovereignty. That would have given the people in the colony, who are concerned about their future, a say in it. It would have been the best safeguard to ensure that the vast majority of them—including those in commerce and education, and the high fliers and entrepreneurs—stayed in Hong Kong, thus guaranteeing the future of all the people, their prosperity, and their contribution to the People's Republic of China, and preserving the major role that the territory has played in the far east for so many years.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Maclennan: When the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) speaks about honour, I am reminded of the words of Tennyson:
  "His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
  And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."
  The hon. Gentleman's wrapping of the union jack around himself and the proclamation of his commitment to democracy carries little weight when he is not prepared to respond to what the people of Hong Kong have asked for.
  The people of Hong Kong have a more realistic assessment of what democracy means as defence against tyranny. They have seen other countries trampled under foot. They remember, if the hon. Gentleman does not, how the democracy that was coming back to life in Czechoslovakia was rolled out by the tanks from the east. There was an elected democracy in Czechoslovakia when Jan Masaryk was thrown from the windows of his Foreign Office. To talk of democracy as a defence against the People's Republic is total self-deception.
  The reality is that new clause 9 is the fig leaf put forward by the Labour party to cover the nakedness of its response to the demand from the people of Hong Kong for the security that they thought they would enjoy by being British citizens, albeit cut-down British citizens, as holders of British dependent territory passports. They thought that it would be reasonable to turn to this honourable country to see those passports made good and for a right of full British citizenship. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield had been prepared to support the people of Hong Kong in that plea, we might have listened to his jingoism and plea for democracy with greater enthusiasm, and perhaps even sympathy.
  The reality is that the Government have chosen to look not at the symbols but at the power structures in the orient. They have tried to decide what they can do to move Hong Kong towards a more democratic system of government than there has been in the colony under successive parties in this country. They have made a cautious judgment that
  414
  they can move at a certain rate, with the acceptance of the Peking Government. They are also trying to hold out the prospect that Hong Kong will be a prosperous nation in 1997.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: With all its people here.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the hon. Member for Epping when he spoke of evidence that he had seen in Hong Kong, which revealed that 1·8 per cent. of the people of Hong Kong wanted to come to this country. They are not interested in coming here, save as a last resort.
  Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) did not vote.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman can carry his quarrels with Conservative Members into another forum. I do not propose to intrude on them.
  The evidence given by innumerable hon. Members, in debates which the hon. Member for Macclesfield did not attend, was that the people of Hong Kong are not seeking to flock here. The argument of the Liberal Democrats is that we should respond to the demands of the people of Hong Kong, not because they would take up these passports but because they want security in the event of the catastrophe of 1997. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield wants an honourable solution to the problem, he should listen to that argument.
  I will not detain the House at this late hour, because these arguments have been trawled before, but I cannot support new clause 9 or amendment No. 50, which are merely a diversion designed to deflect attention from the unwillingness to offer the people of Hong Kong that which they want—the right of British citizenship. The fact that these proposals are made with such vehemence will not divert people from the reality. If the new clauses were accepted, they would postpone, beyond any realistic date, the possibility of any scheme being introduced to establish the security of the people whose presence in Hong Kong is so necessary to its commercial and industrial strength. In that strength lies its only hope of salvation from takeover and subjection.
  Mr. Maude: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke in those terms and tones. He rightly reminded us that these matters are of profound importance for the future of the nearly 6 million people who look to us for help and support and for whom we in the House are responsible. It is therefore too great a matter for large phrases to be thrown round quite as lightly as my hon. Friend did.
  The Government have at no stage pretended or argued that our proposals in the Bill are the sole answer to questions about the future of Hong Kong. We have always agreed with the view, which has found consensus in the House, that democracy matters to Hong Kong, that we want the process of democracy to be advanced and to take place more quickly than was generally believed to be the case a year or even two years ago. To argue, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) did, with a casual disregard for the realities, and to say that there is an easy, quick answer, that we could move rapidly to total democracy, that all the problems would be solved and that the Hong Kong people would rise up in gratitude

  415
  to a large-minded House of Commons, is the cruellest deception that could be practised on the people of Hong Kong, and we will have no part of it.
  Of course we agree that there should be further democracy. We argued strongly that the Basic Law, which will come into effect on 30 June 1997, should include more democracy than the previous draft, and it does, although not dramatically so. The argument in the new clause is that we should move immediately to introduce 100 per cent. democracy. In a way, I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the matter is entirely within our sovereignty. We have no alibi. The People's Republic of China has no power to veto it. Of course we could have done this and of course we still can.
  We could introduce those elections in 1991 or 1995, and it would make us feel terrific about ourselves. Playing it over in my mind, I can imagine how the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Wrexham and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield would laud us and say how courageous we had been for standing up to China. But it would not make the slightest difference to the reality, because the law that will operate in Hong Kong in July 1997 is not a law introduced by the House of Commons but one introduced by the People's Republic of China. There could have been this brief orgy of full democracy for seven years, brought in in the certain knowledge that it would be immediately dismantled by the People's Republic of China. If we had done that, I do not believe that we would have done any service to the people in Hong Kong who look to us for a reasonable approach, and we shall not do it.
  Mr. Wells: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make two points before we finish the debate.
  First, it is clear from the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that there are difficulties in the introduction of direct democracy, as my hon. Friend the Minister suggested. But Hong Kong is committed to elections; it is committed to democracy by the treaty that we signed in 1984. Perhaps events will turn out as they certainly would have done in 1955, when I first lived in Hong Kong and when the nationalists and the Chinese communists were fighting in Nathan road, Kowloon and I had the misfortune of trying to part the two warring camps. But I think that the present situation is different: the People's Republic of China has made a commitment to democracy in Hong Kong and will permit it to work. The Chinese said as much to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee when we visited Peking.
  That means that there is no question of there not being a democracy, and a democracy of a kind has been agreed anyway. The first direct elections will take place next year; further elections will take place in 1995, and they will carry Hong Kong, through 1997, to a further election. We are in the process of establishing democracy anyway. What is important is that we should establish it early, to allow it to take deep enough roots to minimise or preclude the type of influence to which we have referred.
  Secondly, the Bill seeks to give 50,000 passports—it will possibly be 250,000 passports in total—to leading members of the Hong Kong community so that we can retain their services in Hong Kong at least until 1997. I believe that British citizenship is a privilege. Those who enjoy that privilege may stay in Hong Kong until 1997; it is more doubtful that they will stay after 1997. During the
  416
  period in which we are trying to establish democracy so that Hong Kong can continue for the next 50 years as a capitalist democratic enclave in the People's Republic of China, it is precisely those people who must give the lead and create and breathe life into the democratic institutions and make them work. They must make those institutions accountable and make them the bodies that stand against the executive and the other economic powers in Hong Kong. They will create the powerful and prosperous future that I dearly wish Hong Kong to have. The Bill will undermine that process.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend referred to an "orgy of democracy". We have watched eastern Europe crumble as people have asserted basic freedoms and rights—representative government and the defence of their interests and lives. We have promoted that argument. Foreign Office representatives have gone round cheering for it and the House has cheered for it; our people have recognised the spirit of the claims of the people of eastern Europe and have also cheered for them.
  We have no constitutional responsibility for eastern Europe but we have observed and cheered for developments there. I personally cheer for them, and the House—which owes its very existence to those basic rights and freedoms—cheers for them. Yet now the Minister refers to an "orgy of democracy" in a country where we do, indeed, have constitutional responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, we are committed to the process, although it will fall outside our competence once we resign our responsibilities, on the accession of that criminal conspiracy in Peking which is called the Communist party.
  The one gift from their inheritance that the British Government, British institutions and the British people can pass on to Hong Kong is a respect for the rights of individual citizens to determine their futures—for however long our competence over that may last. I suspect that the conspiracy that we saw march into Tiananmen square last year will also march into Hong Kong if the regime has not changed by 1997. The banner of a free people expressing themselves in their own representative institutions may well do something to help to change the balance of that great and mighty nation, China.
  We therefore should not be scornful. The very phrase "orgy of democracy" should haunt us. We should be proud of our inheritance; that is all I argue. I support the Government on the Bill. I do not like the circumstances that brought us to it, and I do not like its consequences, but I argue that the Government are doing the honourable thing by trying to acknowledge that decent and reasonable citizens in peril should be given some guarantee of safety to enable them to continue and to allow the survival of the colony in its present form.
  That is why I support the Government. I deeply regret that the Government have not moved to give representative Government to the people of Hong Kong. I regret that, because that is the very spirit of our inheritance and it is the last thing that we can offer to the world.
  I will vote against the new clause, because to tie the proposal to another condition is ridiculous and absurd. However, the concept that we should be returning representative government to the people of Hong Kong is wholly honourable and reasonable. That is something that

  417
  I would have liked this Government, whom I support, to hold as a constant banner in our arrangements in this matter.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Foulkes: There could be no finer end to this debate than the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend's speech contained no comfort for the Opposition.
  Mr. Foulkes: There is comfort for the Opposition in the hon. Gentleman's speech, as the Minister will discover in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has great sincerity and shows great courage in the kind of Bills that he brings before the House and in the way in which, on occasions, he votes in the House. We respect him and he was right to take the Minister to task.
  We have had an interesting debate and, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) discovered, at times quite a passionate one. I intend to deal with two points raised by the Minister. He gave a false account of what the Opposition have said on this issue. He said that we were talking only about democracy and then he knocked that down. Of course, it is easy to knock down something that is one's own account of what was said and not what actually was said.
  We did not say that democracy would ensure that all the problems would be solved and that it was an easy, quick answer. If we had said that, it would have been a cruel deception. We said that democracy was one element that is essential in helping to restore confidence. That is not an easy, quick answer. The Minister did himself no credit by criticising us on that front.
  The Minister made an astonishing remark. He went further than he did in Committee and claimed that we were pursuing our proposal in the certain knowledge that it would be dismantled by China. How can he say that? He was more cautious and less outrageous in Committee. According to the joint declaration, in the special administrative region, the Legislative Council would be constituted by election. The Chinese have said that. That is a principle about which so many people feel strongly that we should stand by and challenge the Government of China on it. If we had the courage to do that, we would win.
  The rather emotional intervention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland gave us an insight into the conflict over his party's joint agreement, during which he came to blows over the dead parrot of a joint agreement. That is a serious issue and the hon. Member for Macclesfield treated it as such. He made a sensible speech, but was attacked in an emotional and, I believe, unsustainable way. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland described the new clause as a fig leaf for the Labour party's position. He implied, as the Minister did, that the Labour party was concerned only with the issue of democracy.
  If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has listened to my speech, he would know that I also spoke about the importance of China reaffirming its commitment to the one country-two systems process. I also described
  418
  the importance of China retaining its window on the western world. I spoke also about the international safety net if there is a crisis in the colony. In no way is that a fig leaf. It is an element in our alternative plan in relation to confidence in the future of the colony. As it happens, it is also unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman choose the fig leaf metaphor, because I am about to take the fig leaf away.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: What is underneath it?
  Mr. Foulkes: I dread to think of the visions that that metaphor conjures up for Conservative Members. [Interruption.] The Minister reads my mind. I can only thank higher beings for their existence at the Dispatch Box.
  The new clause has well served the purpose for which it was tabled. We have had a good debate on democracy. The purpose of tabling the new clause was to allow that debate to take place. Whatever the Minister may say, the contribution by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was not an embarrassment to the Opposition. He rightly said that the new clause is effectively a wrecking measure. It links the principle of democracy to other aspects of the Bill that we have tried to improve. We have deliberately taken a constructive approach in Committee and on Report.
  The message about the importance of having democracy in Hong Kong as quickly as possible has got across, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Budgen moved, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 34 (Dilatory motion in abuse of rules of House), declined to propose the Question thereon.

Clause 1

  ACQUISITION OF BRITISH CITIZENSHIP
  Mr. Marlow: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert '10,000'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert '5,000'.
  No. 14, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert `20,000'.
  No. 15, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert `30,000'.
  No. 16, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert '40,000'.
  No. 48, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  `( ) The Secretary of State may by order amend subparagraph (1) by substituting a higher figure for the figure for the time being specified there if the Governor recommends that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong or the safety of its residents.'.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have a series of amendments—the numbers amendments. On the face of the Bill, the Government have a figure of 50,000 heads of household passports to be issued. The amendments refer to 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000. I believe, because I have read it—I should have found it hard to believe otherwise—that there is also a Liberal amendment to increase the number.

  419
  Not long ago we had an important debate on abortion. A series of amendments were called on a pendulum basis —one after the other. I am wondering how we can deal with voting on these amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman spoke to his amendment. We shall see how we get on during the debate.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your undertaking.
  Amendment No. 3 is a numbers amendment. A famous parliamentarian once said on the issue of immigration that numbers are of the essence. The Government have plucked out a figure—I am not sure whether it was out of the ether or elsewhere—of 50,000 as being the number of passports that they believe would satisfy the situation in Hong Kong and secure the continuing residence in Hong Kong of people who are essential to the well-being of the colony. As the House will know, it is the view of many of my hon. Friends that the issuance of those passports will not ensure that the people who have them remain, but that they take the first plane or boat out to re-establish themselves, their careers, their families and their financial fortunes elsewhere.
  When we consider the numbers, we must take a careful look at the present circumstances in the United Kingdom. The past generation or so has seen a massive immigration of people of different backgrounds, cultures, religions, nationalities and ways of life into this country. I am much the same as many other hon. Members, in that I do not believe that our way of life, religion and culture is any better or worse than that of anybody else. Nevertheless, man is a tribal animal. Labour Members would say that man is a racist animal. They say that I am a racist. I do not know what they mean by that. If I am—and probably 90 per cent. of the population agree with my views—they are saying that 90 per cent. of those whom they want to vote for them at the general election are also racists.
  If one brings in people of different races, cultures and backgrounds, to coin the word used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, one swamps localities with people of different backgrounds and the indigenous population whose families have resided here for generations will feel that their identity is being threatened. That does not happen only in the United Kingdom. One does not need to read the book when one can look at the picture. It is happening now in the Soviet Union.
  There is a massive racial strife between the Asiatic republics there, because people from different backgrounds and cultures were put together in republics, to a large extent by the centralised bureaucracy of the Soviet Union. For 70 years they have been suppressed by Soviet communism, and now that that repression is no longer applied the old antagonisms are re-erupting, although they have been living together for two or three generations.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Marlow: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to make a speech in a moment, I am sure that the House—
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is trying to compare the conditions in the United Kingdom with those in the Soviet Union. Is he not aware that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people were transplanted in the Soviet
  420
  Union from one part of that union thousands of miles to another and that they were forced on the people in the places where they were settled? How on earth can he make an honest comparison between those entirely different circumstances?
  Mr. Marlow: People in the Soviet Union have been transported from one part to another—
  Mr. Carlile: Transplanted by force.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. They were transplanted. They migrated from one part to another. People of different races and backgrounds have been living in various parts of the Soviet Union not for generations, but for centuries. The German communities in the Soviet Union have been there since the time of Catherine the Great. Although people have been there a long time, the ethnic differences still—
  Mr. Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should send the Welsh back to Caernarvon?
  Mr. Marlow: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to take part in a debate for children, let him find it elsewhere. This is a serious matter, which requires proper consideration by the House.
  Problems arise between proportionately small communities of different backgrounds and cultures. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole because there is an element of cross-fertilisation. If sufficiently large ethnic minority communities, almost colonies, are transplanted or come of their own free will, the indigenous people feel that their identity is being threatened. Before we address ourselves to the number of people whom we allow in—people of different races, cultures and backgrounds, estimable, worthy, successful and articulate though they are and people with whom individually we may get on well —let us consider the present conditions here. It may riot worry us here. We may be relatively wealthy, relatively well-off and live in relatively comfortable surroundings, but it worries some of our constituents. We certainly ought to take account of that.
  There has been mass migration of people of different cultures to this country, and we all know that the bulk of our constituents resent it. We all know in our bones that we ought to have done something about it, but we all know that to have done something about it at the time would have appeared illiberal, unpleasant and intolerant and therefore we stood back from doing it. We have let communities accumulate in this country knowing that it was against the desires, interests wishes, deep feelings and soul of the people of our country. Yet still we have been negligent enough to let it happen. We shall let it happen again if the Bill goes through the House.
  The Government say that 50,000 heads of household will be issued with passports. With families, we can gross that up to 225,000 people—a quarter of a million people perhaps. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) believes—I do not agree with him—that, if the Bill is allowed to go through, all those people will not come here because all they really want to do is to stay in Hong Kong. He believes that everything will turn out right in China and that they will not feel the pressure to come out of Hong Kong, so they will all stay.
  I do not believe that, but even if I did, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said on an earlier occasion, if one issues an insurance policy one must

  421
  take account of the fact that one might have to deliver, one might have to pay the bill, one might have to cough up. We are talking about a quarter of a million people. Those people will have friends, relatives and families in Hong Kong, and if things are unpleasant and there are pressures in Hong Kong and people want to get married from Hong Kong they will want to come to Britain.
  We know how it is with the Asian sub-continent. We are better off in this country. There is more wealth here than there is in Asia. We know that and are grateful for it. Because of that, there is migration and families come together. But they tend to come together in one direction, quite naturally. They tend to come together in the United Kingdom where the wealth is and where people will be better off and will make better livings for themselves. If dark days surround the future of Hong Kong, the quarter of a million Chinese who come to this country will accumulate here their friends, relatives, spouses and their family from Hong Kong.
  So we are talking about not a quarter of a million but perhaps half a million people added to the 4 million people of different culture and ethnic background who are in this country. They are lovely, excellent people, but different people. The indigenous population, rightly or wrongly, feel threatened by that. If we wish well for the future, that is something that we must take into account.
  We might like to feel that, through race relations legislation, the Commission for Racial Equality, good will and education, everyone will love one another and come together. That might happen; but it might not. The history of the world to date does not give us great cause for optimism.
  I do not want to delay the House for long, but we really ought to look at some of the statistics. I know that it will be greatly offensive to members of the Liberal Democratic party because they do not think that these things matter. It may matter to their constituents, but it does not seem to matter to them.
  Let us consider schools. In the Inner London education authority, more than half the children are of non-European ethnic origin. In 1987, in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, almost half the schoolchildren were from Indian sub-continental ethnic origin. They are mainly Bangladeshi, of course. That is not a mixed, thriving, integrated community of people working together; it is a colony. How will the people who live round about react to that? If 50 per cent. of the people who live in the area are from Bangladesh, the people who are not from Bangladesh will move away and more people will move in from Bangladesh. They have large families. Why should they not have large families? The tendency will be that the proportion will increase from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. I predict that within a relatively short period Tower Hamlets will effectively have become not a Bangladeshi community, but a colony within the United Kingdom.
  How are we going to deal with that? How will we deal with the pressures and problems that have arisen since the Salman Rushdie affair began? I hope that we can, but can we guarantee it, and until we can guarantee it, does it make sense to allow a quarter of a million or half a million more
  422
  people—worthy, estimable, pleasant, splendid and educated though they may be, but of a different culture, race and background—to come to this country?
  I think that that would be madness—I really do. It is irresponsible. We all pride ourselves that through that irresponsibility we are being decent, honest and liberal, but we are not. We are building up a store of problems for our children.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. What does he think would happen in Hong Kong if the Government were not to make this concession? What does he think that the impact would be on the professional bodies and the Administration generally? Has he thought about that? Could he make a prediction about that in as informed a way as he has made his most recent predictions?
  Mr. Marlow: As I said earlier, although we have responsibility for Hong Kong, our main commitment and responsibility is to the people—the electorate—of this country—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer.
  Mr. Marlow: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows me well enough to know that I will answer.
  As we have said before, we disagree with the Government's proposal to offer people passports because it will encourage them to get out while the going is good and to take their families out early. We have been conned by the sophisticates, the gilded yuppies and the upper classes of Chinese Hong Kong. I believe that they will see themselves right and get out while the rest will have to stay behind. Seeing the privileged and the elite leaving Hong Kong will cause a greater problem for those who remain in Hong Kong and for Hong Kong itself than would be the case if the captains—the leaders—of Hong Kong were to stay. I believe that they will leave. If we did not have the Bill, I believe that they would be more likely to stay.
  It was said earlier, "Why leave Hong Kong if you have an income tax rate of 15 per cent. there?" I believe that if we were not encouraging them to leave by this legislation, they might make a go of it and stay—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that when I repeatedly asked people in Hong Kong whether they would come here and they said, "No, we want to stay as long as possible; we do not want to leave," they were deliberately misleading me and that I was conned and fooled by them?
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman had what conversations he had with a lot of people, but it is my belief that, if people in Hong Kong wanted to sell this measure to the British Government, politicians and public, they would not say, "If you pass this Bill, we shall leave Hong Kong," because we would smell a rat. They are far more likely to say, "Of course, if you pass this, you will keep us in Hong Kong." The hon. Gentleman has made his assessment and I have made mine.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Were we conned?
  Mr. Marlow: Time will tell—[Interruption.] Yes, I think hon. Members were conned—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is surely naive.
  Mr. Marlow: Well, that is the hon. Gentleman's opinion.
  The Bill will not do Hong Kong any good. As others have said, it is the only ship on which the captain gets off first and leaves the crew and the women and children behind until last. The Bill looks after those who would otherwise be able to look after themselves, and those who cannot look after themselves will be forced to remain in Hong Kong. In military terms, it is not what one would call "leadership by example".
  Although I do not want to detain the House, I shall bore hon. Members with a few more statistics. The latest statistics on births in inner London show that half those births are to people of non-British ethnic origin. In Greater London, the proportion is 40 per cent. of all births—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: So what?
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "So what?" The hon. Gentleman for Workington has been throwing words such as "naive" around, but I am not naive; to say "So what?" to the fact that half the babies born in our capital city are of non-British origin is incredibly naive.
  I had a grandfather who was born and brought up in London; he died in London 25 years ago. If he returned to London now, he would not believe the evidence of his eyes. He would not think that he was in Britain. He would hardly think that he was on the same planet. If that has happened over the past 25 years, what will happen to our capital in the next 25 years? What does the hon. and learned Gentleman think will happen? What will be the future stability of Britain? What will happen to Britain's identity? We have mixed loyalties and different cultures. It is true that they are thriving, lively and exciting, but what will they do for peace in our nation? I believe that we have a tiger by the tail, and I am sad that the Government will add to our problems.
  Mr. Maclennan: My amendment, No. 48, is grouped with amendment No. 3, which was moved by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) but the purpose of the two amendments is entirely different. The intention behind amendment No. 48 is to enable the Governor to bring forward proposals to raise the ceiling from 50,000 persons if, in his judgment, it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of stability in Hong Kong or for the safety of its residents.
  The Minister will know that I moved an amendment in Committee to seek to give all holders of dependent territory citizenship the right of abode in this country and the right to full British citizenship. That is the basic view of my party and my parliamentary colleagues on how Britain should respond. We have not altered our judgment following the debates that we have heard, but we have recognised that the policy will not be endorsed by the Government. Among the reasons why are the views of those who share the opinions of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There is a spectrum of views on the Government Benches, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman constitutes one end of it. It is appropriate that, in a debate on numbers, we should hear the views that are held by the two ends of the spectrum.
  Conservative Members found themselves in some difficulties during a debate about the wives of British citizens. It seemed that, in replying to the debate, the
  424
  Under-Secretary of State conceded that a time would probably come when all the 50,000 passports had been issued and nothing could be done about the wives of British citizens under that head. It seemed that the Government had no means of coping with that problem. Those wives of British citizens would have to be left until the curtain dropped in 1997, when no doubt they would be able to apply for asylum if they felt themselves threatened.
  One of the benefits of accepting amendment No. 48 is that it would provide for the possibility of dealing with the problem of the wives of British citizens within the compass of the Bill. I am talking about a few hundred spouses. There are other reasons for seeking to provide a degree of flexibility to the Governor and to the Government. If the scheme is to have a major impact upon public opinion in Hong Kong, it must be introduced quickly. It must be introduced for most of the 50,000 if it is to have any impact on the areas of the economy, which are most threatened by the evacuation of skilled, talented and educated people who are the key to maintaining the economy.
  That practical concept has little to do with equity; it has nothing to do with justice. It has much to do, however, with trying to keep the wheels turning in Hong Kong. If it is to have that effect, it must be implemented quickly, and that has been accepted by the Government. Nevertheless, considerable problems will be created. If all the places are allocated and the circumstances change, I do not see why the Government should have to come back to the House to try to alter those circumstances through primary legislation, month—or years—later, when they need only accept the amendment now to ensure that the Bill's purposes are not set at naught.
  1 am
  The Government say that, having taken advice in Hong Kong, they consider 50,000 an acceptable figure because some people have come round to that view. When I was in Hong Kong after the Tiananmen square massacre—along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—the figures that we heard were nearer 350,000. Different groups have come up with different suggestions, but all the figures have been larger than that proposed by the Government. Given that people are leaving Hong Kong at the rate of about 1,000 a week, I do not think that the Government can be so sure that they have got it right.
  All I ask is for the Government to retain the degree of flexibility that will enable them to react to the judgment of the Governor, in whom they have placed so much trust, and to move quickly and appropriately. They need not resile from their view that 50,000 is the right number; they can stick to it, and reassure Conservative Members that they believe it to be right. It would, however, be helpful if they would admit the possibility that it is not right.
  If further primary legislation is needed, I feel that the schemes in general will be brought into considerable disrepute. In any event, I doubt whether such legislation could have the same impact as the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North made an extremely interesting speech, and I have no doubt that he was sincere, but I cannot believe that he really speaks for Britain. He claims that 90 per cent. of the public agree with him, citing as evidence the divisions in Tower Hamlets. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that an election was held in Tower Hamlets recently, and that the party returned to run the borough is the party to which I have

  425
  the honour to belong, and not the hon. Gentleman's party. In the light of that result, the hon. Gentleman's example struck me as peculiarly inapposite.
  Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: No; I am dealing with one Member at a time.
  I find the views of the hon. Member for Northampton, North about the Englishness of being English singularly provincial. In the mid-1950s, my constituency in the north of Scotland experienced an influx of Englishmen who spoke with accents that seemed more exotic in Caithness than the accents of Hong Kong would seem in Tower Hamlets. They did not belong to the same established Church. They came up to work in a nuclear research establishment and do foreign, exotic and, some thought, dangerous things, for money. They have been assimilated. The accents are a little more alike now. Generations pass.
  But it is not only English people who have come up to my constituency and been assimilated. There are some Bengalis too, and the children speak with strong Caithness accents and execute the highland fling with at least as much panache as the descendents of the Mackay of Mackay. The reality is that time is the factor that the hon. Gentleman leaves out of account.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is helping to make the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The number of English who have gone up to Scotland is comparatively small and, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been properly assimilated. But he might like to reflect on the difficulties in Northern Ireland between the Scottish settlers and the Irish people who were there before them.
  Mr. Maclennan: I speak about what I know. The population of Caithness rose substantially and the town of Thurso trebled in size, as a result of an injection of almost entirely English blood in the middle 1950s. That was a sudden demographic change of a massive kind which had the potential to cause enormous disruption, but it did not.
  If one is seeking to argue this matter on the basis of culture, one is getting into rather dangerous territory. The reality is that we live in a world that is increasingly small and mobile, where the difference and diversity of backgrounds is a positive advantage. It is a cause not of diversion but of delight. The fact of some tens of thousands of people coming from Hong Kong to Britain cannot be regarded by me or my right hon. and hon. Friends as a tragedy or a threat. It would create a dynamism in those parts of the country which were fortunate enough to be the receiving point which even the Government might welcome.
  We approach such matters from a different philosophical and historical point of view. I do not imagine for a minute that I will take the hon. Member for Northampton, North very far with me down that road, but let him not speak as though he spoke for Britain. There are other points of view.
  Mr. Janman: I shall not detain the House long. I assure my hon. Friends that I am sincere in that intent. But before I make my two brief points on the amendments, I want to expose the hypocritical drivel of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he referred to Tower Hamlets.
  426
  Members of the Labour party in the borough of Tower Hamlets are most irate and sincere in their criticism of the local Liberal party for the racist campaign that they consider the Liberals have fought on more than one occasion in borough elections in Tower Hamlets. I believe that I am right in saying that the Liberal party in Tower Hamlets has been taken to task by the Commission for Racial Equality for its housing policies. There has certainly been wide criticism of the Liberal party in the borough of Tower Hamlets, basically because the Liberal council puts Bangladeshis at the back of the housing queue. Many accusations have been made against the Liberals, so let us not have any more of that convenient principled Liberal party purporting to the House that it has a consistent view on such matters. One has only to go to Tower Hamlets to see the true face of the Liberal party.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is not noted for his ready acceptance of propaganda coming from the extreme left, not just the extreme left of the Labour party but from extremes far to the left of that. Why does he now choose to believe extreme left propaganda, as opposed to the verdict of the electors of Tower Hamlets who have supported a Liberal Democrat council which in extremely difficult circumstances, with strong Bangladeshi support, has managed to build a community which he would have sought to send back to the Indian sub-continent?
  Mr. Jarman: I was not seeking to criticise the electorate of Tower Hamlets, and it is not only the Labour party in the borough which has made such criticisms—there have also been criticisms of the housing policy there from neutral quarters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where? Name them."] I am seeking to expose the hypocrisy of the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, given the policies that his party has pursued in Tower Hamlets. If the people of Tower Hamlets wish to endorse those policies, I do not criticise that. It is a matter for the electorate there.
  Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 seek to reduce the number of passports being issued to heads of households to 10,000 and 5,000 respectively. The first point, which has been made at considerable length by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, is that, frankly, the number of 50,000 in the Bill is totally unacceptable to the British people. I put it on record that I endorse a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said.
  The second point is that there is a logic to the amendments. Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 rightly gives a clear commitment to senior Crown servants in Hong Kong, who could potentially be at risk after 1997 if things turned sour in the colony. Therefore, if a Bill is passed by the House to amend that Act, it is not inconsistent to refine, guarantee and restate a commitment in law to a number of people which arithmetically would be roughly equivalent to those who are already covered by section 4(5) of the 1981 Act.
  I briefly endorse the accurate remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. I believe that he speaks for the vast majority of people in this country. Certainly the vast majority of my constituents hold the same view. It will not surprise the House to hear me standing here tonight to support those views and to put forward the fears of my constituents.

  427
  The hour is very late, but I urge the House to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and other hon. Members.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene for a few moments in the debate because I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is not an amendment which I would have supported a month ago, but I feel in principle that one could support the amendment today, if one has talked to people in Hong Kong about these issues.
  As so few hon. Members have had the opportunity to discuss with people in Hong Kong what their real intentions are, the House is perhaps not in a position to make a valid judgment on these matters. The truth is that many people do not wish to leave, will resist leaving until the last minute and will do so only in the most extreme circumstances.
  In the course of one conversation, I found myself asking someone what kind of conditions would have to exist for them to finally want to leave. The scenario that they painted was one that even I found quite inconceivable. It seems that most people believe that the Chinese Government will seek to find some accommodation with the people in Hong Kong, if only to safeguard their commercial interests over the border in China, where a huge economy has developed in the special economic zone which has been set up by the Chinese authorities. It is utterly reliant on Hong Kong for the export of goods and their shipment to the rest of the world. The special economic zone provides substantial revenue for the Chinese Government.
  Exactly the same happened in Macau. It was put to me when I was in Macau that the Chinese may want to develop support there, too, by giving Macau an element of independence so as to secure their own commercial interests. The Chinese are thoroughly pragmatic. They take a sensible view of what is in their best commercial interests. All I can do is to pass on what I was told while I was there. Even people who previously took a hard line found that their view had substantially changed after meeting people out there.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it peculiar that, after having made this enormous trawl, he did not find a single person who would leave now, even though thousands are leaving every week?
  1.15 am
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I referred earlier to the reasons why many of them are leaving now. Some countries have set up reception arrangements that require people immediately to take up the right of abode in the receiving countries. It is not that they want to move; it is that, if they accept the right of abode in Canada, they have to exercise it within a matter of a few months. Many of them would much prefer to stay in Hong Kong for many more years, having established a right of abode in Canada, and to exercise that right of abode only in the very worst conditions.
  I drew the House's attention to the fact that a class of people are developing in Hong Kong who are called the astronauts—people who have immediately accepted the right of abode in Canada because of the nature of the offer. They have moved their money, in part, to Canada, but
  428
  they have left much of it in Hong Kong. Having set up businesses in Canada, they have returned to Hong Kong to manage their businesses there, in the hope that one day they may be able to return to Canada. They have located their assets outside Hong Kong in such a way as to secure their assets for the future.
  That is a perfectly human response. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to the fact that 1,000 people are leaving Hong Kong each week. I hope that hon. Members will not therefore conclude that they are necessarily leaving because they are desperate. In the main, they are leaving only because of the offers that have been made, not only by Canada, Australia and New Zealand but also by a number of other countries in south-east Asia. The most liberal country in south-east Asia in terms of acceptance arrangements is Singapore. The Government of Singapore have offered flexibility. People drew my attention on a number of occasions to the Singapore arrangement, since it provides for a delayed right of abode.
  The problem is that many people have not, unfortunately, had the opportunity to discuss these matters in detail with the people who live in the colony. The majority want to remain there and are determined to do so, but they are worried about losing their assets. They also hold a social position in the colony. People aspire to a social position in all societies, and very often it is underpinned by their personal wealth. Having acquired that position, they are unwilling to lose it. Those in Hong Kong are simply trying to establish a bolthole, to secure their assets outside Hong Kong, while at the same time providing a reasonably secure future also for their families.
  I wish that more people had had the opportunity to share my experience, for it would have greatly affected their contribution to this debate. I am not bought off with trips. I went to Hong Kong holding a fairly hard line, and during my visit—for which the Hong Kong Government paid—I argued the case made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Wherever I went, I pointed to the debate in this country based on an interpretation of the issue in terms of immigration as against assurance. I confess that, after a week out there, I had to change my view. There, the question is not seen in immigration terms but in terms of consolidating the residents' position and making sure of their futures.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The remarks of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cambell-Savours) were very perceptive and showed why the Government believe that the legislation is not to do with immigration but designed to give key people who have an opportunity to leave Hong Kong the confidence to remain there. That is the Bill's objective, and the hon. Member for Workington summed it up very well.
  It is clear that there is no particular logic in the different figures that my hon. Friends suggest should be inserted into the Bill. They have not argued for any of them, except perhaps those relating to Crown servants. I suspect that they merely sought an opportunity to argue that the Government simply plucked the figure of 50,000 key people out of thin air, but they did not succeed.
  As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland surmised, the Government held extensive consultations with the Government and people of Hong Kong, and

  429
  many in the United Kingdom who know Hong Kong made representations about the form that the assurance policy that the Bill represents should take.
  Of course those in Hong Kong want the Bill to allow for a much larger number, and that is understandable. We looked at rates of immigration within the occupational groups and examined the evidence supplied by many of the groups themselves. Having carefully studied the occupational profile of Hong Kong's working population and the balance between the public and private sectors in the colony's economy, we then had to make a judgment.
  The assurance package had to cater for a significant proportion of Hong Kong's key personnel, and thereby make a real impact on the level of emigration from the colony. At the same time, the figure had to be one that Britain could honour if, against all our expectations, those granted citizenship decided to come to the United Kingdom to live. If they did, their contribution to the United Kingdom would be immense, as it has been to Hong Kong. I am saddened that, in the excitement of his verbosity, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) did not find a moment even to consider that aspect when he expatiated on the arrival of former Hong Kong residents in this country.
  There is no precise science behind the 50,000 figure. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained on Second Reading, it was necessarily a compromise. We have to balance our duty to Hong Kong and to the United Kingdom, and we also have an ineluctable duty to both. Nothing that I heard today persuades me that the figures proposed by my hon. Friends are in any way an improvement on the Government's judgment. There would be no merit in a scheme that offered assurances to such a small number of people that there was no impact on the level of emigration and no spin-off in terms of confidence within the colony.
  Mr. Marlow: What, in the Government's judgment, is the number of people who have been given these passports who will migrate to the United Kingdom, assuming that the relationships between Hong Kong and China, and between China and the United Kingdom, stay the same as now?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think the number will be very low, as the hon. Member for Workington said.
  Mr. Marlow: How low?
  Mr. Lloyd: We have no precise figure, but it is small. Presumably my hon. Friend thinks that all 50,000 will come here, but if he talks to some of the people who would be in line for British citizenship under the scheme, he will find that they do not want to come here; they want to stay in Hong Kong, but they want the assurance that, if things go wrong, they will have somewhere to go. They do not want to spend time in Canada or Australia if they can have the confidence to remain in Hong Kong with British citizenship.
  Mr. Tebbit: Let us suppose that things do not go quite as my hon. Friend expects them to. In this world it is possible that even a Minister in a Conservative Government can be wrong in some small detail. It is very
  430
  unusual, but the Bill shows that it is possible. Indeed, the Minister has admitted that he has been wrong on a number of occasions this evening.
  Let us suppose that a large number of the people who are protected by British citizenship granted under the Bill decide to leave Hong Kong in the next three or four years. Can my hon. Friend assure me that under no circumstances will the Government come back to the House and say that another lot of people are now in the posts vacated by the first group, and that it is essential that they be maintained in those posts for the benefit of Hong Kong—so they would like to give a few more people citizenship? If the Bill fails in its intention of keeping these people in Hong Kong, will my hon. Friend assure me that he will not then ask the House to reinforce failure by granting another wodge of people British citizenship under this shoddy mechanism?
  Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend knows that we intend to grant the 50,000 places in two tranches, so there will not be a "wodge" in the next year or two; some will be held in reserve. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the Government can give him only one assurance: it is that they have no intention of coming back to the House to increase the number, but that if they ever thought that the number should be increased or decreased, they would have to return to the House, and the House, not the Government, would decide in the end.
  Mr. Tebbit: If my hon. Friend finds that the first tranche results in people leaving Hong Kong with their British passports, will he persist with the second tranche?
  Mr. Lloyd: This Bill will then be on the statute book and we shall judge carefully how it is working out in practice and then report back to the House. I do not expect the scheme to fail in the way that my right hon. Friend suggests. Like people in Hong Kong and those who have studied the issue closely, I believe that the Bill will make an enormous contribution to confidence in the colony, as is our intention.
  Mr. Marlow: The figure of 50,000 is on the face of the Bill. If it becomes apparent that that number is not necessary, will the Government issue fewer passports?
  Mr. Lloyd: If 50,000 apply and meet the criteria, 50,000 will be the number. That is set out in the legislation, and there will be no resiling from that. I know that my hon. Friend is extremely worried that they will come here, but I do not expect them to do so. The majority in the Conservative party, and certainly the majority in the House, realise that that would be a tragedy for Hong Kong but a gain for this country.
  It follows that the Government cannot accept amendment No. 48, which gives the Secretary of State discretion to substitute at a later date a figure higher than 50,000. We have reached a judgment about the maximum commitment that Britain can honour without the risk of unacceptable strain, and the Bill reflects that.
  1.30 am
  Doubts have been expressed that the proposed figure is too high. I do not share those doubts, but nor do I think that the House would expect the Home Secretary to have the power to increase the scale of the scheme without further legislation.
  Mr. Butcher: If my hon. Friend craves your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may wish to make a further observation to those who have listened carefully to his earlier comments. Are the Government, in asking hon. Members to support the Bill, saying that they have no intention whatever of returning to the House with another Bill and further primary legislation if they get their sums wrong about 50,000 people exercising their rights before 1997? I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I think he said that the Government had no such intention, but we know that that phrase cannot be guaranteed. I am asking whether that phrase can be firmed up a little and whether he is prepared to give an undertaking to the House that under no circumstances will that 50,000 figure be exceeded.
  Mr. Lloyd: What I said was perfectly clear and there is no need for me to repeat it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Tebbit: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'after 30th June 1997' and insert 'before 1st December 1992'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 46, in page 1, line 10, at end add
  'or before 1st December 1993'.
  No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  '(4) This Act shall come into force on 1st December 1992 if before that date its coming into force has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  No. 19. in page 3, line 19, at end insert
  ',provided that the Secretary of State may not appoint a day before 1st January 1993, and that, before any day is appointed for the commencement of any of the provisions of this Act, such commencement has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  No. 23, in schedule 1, page 4, line 30, after 'dates', insert `no earlier than 1st January 1993'.
  Mr. Tebbit: The amendments have been grouped together because they all propose to delay the coming into operation of the Bill, either its taking effect or the issue of passports under it.
  Amendment No. 13, although the drafting is defective, would ensure that the Bill could not take effect before there had been a vote in both Houses of Parliament following the next general election. That would allow my right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed Opposition Members, to include in their election manifestos the pledge that they would enact this legislation, thereby allowing people to vote on it. That would be the decent thing to do and would give greater legitimacy to the Bill, which, as we have all agreed, breaches a solemn undertaking given by the Conservative party, not once but four or five times in consecutive general elections, that it would not allow further large-scale immigration.
  My hon. Friend the Minister argued that the Bill would not allow that, that it would not happen, and that he hoped it would not happen, but he cannot, in any circumstances, guarantee that it would not. Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow both Houses of Parliament to vote again on the Bill being brought into effect after there had been a general election.
  This would be unique, because it would be the first time that British electors had ever been consulted on large-scale immigration into this country. In the past, they have not
  432
  been allowed to express an opinion about these matters, except in so far as they have done so by voting Conservative rather than Labour. Those who did so in the expectation that there would be tough immigration controls must be deeply upset and offended today.
  One amendment provides that the passports issued should not have validity before 1997. Once again, the logic of my hon. Friend the Minister is followed. He says that the people of Hong Kong have no wish to use these passports and leave Hong Kong, and they would certainly not do so unless things went very wrong when the Chinese took over in 1997. In those circumstances, there is no need for their passports to be valid until then. What possible reason could they have to want the passports to be valid until then? I do not mind them being issued to give an assurance in case a Labour Government might renege on the promises given. After all, everyone knows that Labour Governments always renege on their promises.
  What reason could there be for a Hong Kong Chinese citizen to want his British passport to be valid until the day he wants to leave Hong Kong, not for the purpose of business but to establish a new life elsewhere? As the causes that might bring him to that conclusion could not conceivably arise until 1997—because until then Hong Kong would be entirely safe under British colonial rule —why should he need the passport to be valid?
  The amendment provides a good, alternative way of assuring the public in Britain that the intention really is to ensure that these people stay in Hong Kong, unless events after the Chinese take over compel them to leave. There may be people who want to use these passports almost as soon as they get them and to use them as travel documents which would enable them to take up residence in other parts of the world, even if not in Great Britain.
  Mr. Maude: I understand the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). It is essentially that the Bill's provisions should not be brought into effect until—depending on the amendment one looks at—two and a half or three years from now. We have introduced the Bill at this stage because there is a problem now. The rate of emigration of key people from Hong Kong is high and continues to rise. That haemorrhaging of talent and skill from the territory is causing great damage. We have judged—opinion in Hong Kong supports this view—that immediate measures are necessary to stem that flow. To delay the ability to award British citizenship for the period suggested by my right hon. Friend would not have stem the flow in the way that the Bill proposes.
  My right hon. Friend put his argument tersely, cogently and simply. The House will understand this simple issue. The Bill is an immediate remedy for an immediate problem. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the House should accept the amendment.
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend was kind enough to say that I had put the argument tersely, cogently and simply. I must say that my hon. Friend was terse and simple but not very cogent. He made a case against delaying the implementation of the Bill until after the next general election, but he gave no reason whatever why a Hong Kong citizen should wish the passport with which he had been issued, and which he held in his hand, to he valid immediately rather than in 1997. What on earth do these people want the passports to be valid for if it is not to leave Hong Kong instead of being persuaded to stay?
  Mr. Maude: They want the certainty that the passports that they hold are valid and will give them the right to leave. An essential part of the argument behind the Bill is that, if people are to have the confidence to remain, they must have the surety of being able to leave. It is not enough to give people a document that does not come into effect until after a general election—with all the consequences to which my right hon. Friend referred. Particularly in the light of the utterances of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the summer of last year—which were delphic, to say the least—that would not give them that confidence. Hong Kong opinion is unanimous about that. The purpose of the Bill is to renew and instil confidence in the minds of people in Hong Kong, and my right hon. Friend's amendment would deny them that confidence.
  Mr. Marlow: Suppose that the exercise were undertaken. Suppose that the Governor allocated the passports and the Home Secretary accepted that the 50,000 passports—225,000 if wives, descendants and families are included—were valid. If each of them could be stamped with the words "this passport is valid from 1 July 1996", would not that be an adequate reassurance?
  Mr. Maude: No, I do not believe that it would. We can argue about whether such as step would have that effect on 50,000 people in Hong Kong, and none of us can be certain that we are right. But I repeat that what the right hon. Member for Gorton said last year destroyed a great deal of the trust that people in Hong Kong had in what might, at some stage, be an alternative Government.
  Mr. Tebbit: I can understand why my hon. Friend rests his case on the deviousness of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). On this issue, the only thing on which we seem to be agreed is that the right hon. Member is devious—I would go so far as to say particularly devious. But that is not a good enough argument. I do not believe that even a Labour Government—even a Foreign Secretary or a Home Secretary in the shape of the right hon. Member for Gorton—would withdraw passports that had been issued. My hon. Friend has still not given me an answer to my question: for what purpose would the passports be used before 1996 or 1997 if not to frustrate the purpose of the Bill? By suggesting that the passports should be valid for use before then, my hon. Friend undermines my confidence that even he believes in the Bill.
  Mr. Maude: That is not the case. My right hon. Friend may be persuaded that passports carrying a delayed action stamp would instil the same confidence, and he might be confident that they would not be revoked. But all the advice and indications that we have had from those who might be the recipients of the passports in Hong Kong suggest that they do not have the trusting nature of my right hon. Friend. If giving people citizenship would not give them the confidence to remain in Hong Kong, which is the principal purpose of the Bill, there is no point in doing it.
  I accept that it is a matter of judgment. Our judgment is—all the evidence that we have from Hong Kong supports it—that to incorporate the amendments in the Bill would be to negate the effect of the award of citizenship.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Minister said that the passports would be issued in two tranches. If, after issuing the first tranche, it becomes apparent that people are taking the first plane or the first boat out and taking advantage of the passports to leave rather than to stay in Hong Kong, will the Government not issue the second tranche?
  Mr. Maude: As I recall, the same question was asked of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the previous debate and he answered it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'may' to end of line 13 and insert 'direct the Governor to make not more than a specified proportion of his recommendations in a period or periods specified in the direction; and any such direction may make different provision in relation to'.
  In Committee I promised the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to consider clarifying clause 1(3). Amendment 47 is the result, and I commend it to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  '() The Secretary of State may by order amend subparagraph (1) by substituting a higher figure for the figure for the time being specified there if the Governor recommends that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong or the safety of its residents.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 217.

  Division No. 233]

  [1.46 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, Charles

  Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Ronnie learn.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Allason, Rupert

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

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ashby, David

  Butcher, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Atkinson, David

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Churchill, Mr

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowis, John

  Curry, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  435

  Day, Stephen

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mates, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fallon, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  Mellor, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Mills, Iain

  Forman, Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Franks, Cecil

  Moate, Roger

  Freeman, Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Gill, Christopher

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Needham, Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Neubert, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Ground, Patrick

  Norris, Steve

  Hague, William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Paice, James

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hannam, John

  Price, Sir David

  Harris, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hayward, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hill, James

  Riddick, Graham

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Holt, Richard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

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

  Ryder, Richard

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B 'wd)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shelton, Sir William

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jack, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Jackson, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Janman, Tim

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Key, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stern, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Lang, Ian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Lightbown, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Lilley, Peter

  Tracey, Richard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Trippier, David

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Trotter, Neville

  Maclean, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mans, Keith

  Walden, George

  Maples, John

  Waller, Gary

  Marlow, Tony

  Watts, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Whitney, Ray

  436

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Yeo, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  '() Nothing in this Section affects the jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act'. —[Mr. Maclennan.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 212.

  Division No.234]

  1.58 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Nellist, Dave

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Robertson, George

  Cryer, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Darling, Alistair

  Wallace, James

  Dixon, Don

  Fearn, Ronald

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. Archie Kirkwood and Mr. Richard Livsey.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Allason, Rupert

  Couchman, James

  Amess, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

  Curry, David

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkins, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Durant, Tony

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fallon, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Favell, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gow, Ian

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

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ground, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butler, Chris

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hill, James

  Churchill, Mr

  Hind, Kenneth

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

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  437

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

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert

  Rlfkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lang, Ian

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tracey, Richard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Trippier, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Mellor, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mills, Iain

  Viggers, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walden, George

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Waller, Gary

  Moate, Roger

  Watts, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Whitney, Ray

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Neubert, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Norris, Steve

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

  PROCEDURE
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
  438
  No. 12, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'determine' to end of line 4.
  Mr. Taylor: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will forgive me for saying a few words on a matter that involves the dignity and honour of the House and the country during our lengthy consideration of the Bill. Even though my right hon. and learned Friend may be tired and want to go to bed, I ask them to listen as I move a small amendment which means a great deal for the honour of our country and the integrity for which we stand.
  The Government propose that the Governor of Hong Kong may by regulations provide for the payment, at a time to be specified, of fees for registration applications. In other words, the potential 50,000 Hong Kong residents who may want to come to Britain, to obtain British passports or to stay in Hong Kong with British passports could be called upon to pay fees. I ask the Government to consider that 40 miles away from Hong Kong there is a place called Macau, where there are 90,000 Portuguese citizens. Those 90,000, under dependence, will be able to come to Britain. They can come here now and work here. they can have full rights of citizenship and access to our social security system, and that will cost them not one penny.
  It is not a matter of cash alone. There is also the factor of who those from Macau can bring with them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the matter. Whom can a Hong Kong citizen bring with him? The answer is a restricted number of people. He can bring minor children under 18 years or 16 years and a spouse. The Government, in their desire to restrict the number of people coming into the country, have said, in effect, "You can only bring in a few." But what if someone is a Portuguese citizen of Macau? That person can bring a spouse, descendants under 21 years of age and dependants in the ascending and descending lines.
  Whether we think the Bill is a good or bad measure I think that we must proceed with it now that promises have been made—we must have in mind the honour and dignity of the House. There is also the respect that we have for the people of Hong Kong and all that they have done for Britain. We should not treat them less well than we are treating citizens of Portuguese Macau.
  Portuguese nationals abroad are treated in the same way as their French counterparts and they have the right of access to this country. For the citizens of Portuguese Macau the position is slightly different and the relevant date is 1 January 1993. Harsh words may have been used during the consideration of the Bill and the Government may not have made many concessions. I ask them to make only one concession for the sake of decency. How is it right to charge Hong Kong citizens a fee but not Portuguese citizens in Macau? It is not right. It is not just. Can they explain to me how it is right that a Portuguese citizen of Macau can bring far more relatives and older children without any restriction while citizens of Hong Kong will have to leave their older children behind? A citizen of Hong Kong might want to bring a son of 19 years with him. That is something that many of us would think about. What about our own families? The Hong Kong citizen will not have a chance of bringing his older children, but the Portuguese citizen of Macau will.
  I appreciate that there are much wider issues that come within different treaties and that the Government cannot be asked to make changes for that reason, but surely they

  439
  will not enact a clause that provides that citizens of Hong Kong who are to benefit in some way from the Bill will be treated less well, and in a shabby way, compared with citizens of Portuguese Macau.
  This is a small amendment and it is not terribly important. It is not an issue that will involve much of a clash with the Government. That being so, I think that they could make a gesture. We have obligations to the people of Hong Kong for the work that they have done for our country and for the help that they have provided. Surely they are entitled to be treated in a way that is not inferior to the citizens of Portuguese Macau. The numbers are different. We are talking about 50,000 in Hong Kong and 90,000 in Macau. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the people of Macau will not all want to come to Britain, just as the Government have said that the people of Hong Kong do not want to come to Britain. I do not care if we are talking about 1,000, 10,000 or 20,000; we should not treat citizens of Hong Kong less well than the citizens of Portuguese Macau.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to make a small concession on a matter of honour and not of cash. I think that the decency of the British Government will be judged by the way in which they treat the citizens of Hong Kong.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Applicants for British citizenship from Hong Kong will be treated in exactly the same way as any other applicant for British citizenship. It has long been our practice to charge fees to cover the cost, and I see absolutely no dishonour in that. It is possible that fees for Portuguese citizenship are not charged in Macau; I do not know. But I do not see why we should follow the Portuguese in that respect, as in several others: it depends on the merits of the case. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East considers it a matter of honour.
  2.15 am
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Surely there is a fundamental difference between these and other applicants. Applying for British citizenship from this country and applying from Hong Kong are rather different procedures. Does my hon. Friend accept that, under the Bill, someone coming to Britain from Hong and someone coming here from Macau will have exactly the same entitlements—that they will have the right to work and receive social security benefits? Surely there is a difference of principle.
  440
  If my hon. Friend accepts the amendment, the Government will lose nothing; we shall simply be treating all applicants in the same way.
  Mr. Lloyd: People who arrive in Portugal from Macau could, if they were workers, have the right to reside and work here, but they would not be eligible for social security: I should perhaps underline that point, as it seemed to weigh somewhat heavily with my hon. Friend.
  I do not think that honour is involved. I think that it is a matter of common practice. For those who apply for British citizenship, there is a scale of fees; a scale of fees would be set in Hong Kong. I consider that entirely appropriate, and I therefore suggest that the House reject the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  2.17 am
  Mr. Darling: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not feel that I should embark on a long speech. Let me simply reiterate what I said earlier.
  We made our position clear on Second Reading, and it was not accepted by the majority of the House. In Committee and on Report, we made a number of attempts to criticise the Bill constructively and, in our view, improve it; our suggestions were not accepted.
  I do not propose to vote against Third Reading. I recognise that the Government have made an honest attempt to deal with a difficult position. None the less, I believe that that attempt is fundamentally flawed, and I therefore cannot support it.
  I am sorry that improvements to the Bill were not made, but they may yet be made in another place.
  Mr. Maclennan: Perhaps the most unsurprising thing about this Third Reading debate is that the Labour party has still not revealed its policy on Hong Kong. However, as the Liberal Democrats have well revealed their policy, both this evening and on earlier occasions, I shall not weary the House by expatiating further.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Coastal Pollution
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  2.19 am
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I am taking this opportunity to raise the question of pollution of our coasts. It will come as no surprise to the House that I want to concentrate on the coastal area of the Flyde, and I hope that others of my hon. Friends will make contributions on the subject.
  Of course, we regret that the state of the Flyde coast has resulted in a decision to take the North West water authority to court. We also regret that there has been pollution for many years and that situation should be changed.
  I want to say only this about the manner of pollution and taking us to court. I do not believe that that will do anything to solve the problems in the north-west or in the Fylde. However, I want to take this opportunity to try briefly to put some things right.
  There has been a great deal of discussion and propaganda in the north-west about the state of our beaches, and from that one would think that pollution levels had got worse. In fact, with the exception of one blip, they have improved steadily during the 1980s. At the beginning of the decade the bacteria level was more than 4,000—I will not go into the details; I want only to draw attention to the change that has come about—and that is now down to about 1,200. That is better than for many years. It is not good enough and we must do better, but we can at least take encouragement from a fourfold reduction in pollution. I hope that we can get down to the required level within the near future.
  I shall be brief so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friends the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) will be able to contribute to the debate. I am happy to give them some of the time that I am privileged to have tonight to allow them to make their points. I shall leave some of the details to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I simply want to draw a broad picture of what has been happening and to try to put right some of the misconceptions in the north-west.
  There are two main issues. The first is where the new major treatment works is to be sited and, in addition, we must decide the process whereby water will be discharged. We have a water-borne sewerage system, and at the end of the day large quantities of water will have to be discharged.
  Some things must be remembered. First, North-West Water has stopped having the lowest capital expenditure in the country, and now has the highest, because of the improvement in its infrastructure and its investment programme. That is in no small measure due to the fact that the Government, when North West Water was privatised, wrote off £1·6 billion of debt. Therefore, the Government have done their duty and have helped North West Water to face its problems.
  There have been active consultations between the water authority and the local authority. They had a meeting two weeks ago when they spoke to the local authorities. What is more, we have had a promise, not from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is on the Front Bench, but from another Minister in the
  442
  Department, that he will meet my colleagues, who are here tonight, and local councillors. So we have consultation with the Government and we are extremely grateful for their good will and co-operation.
  Today we have also had a promise—although we have known of it for a little time—that £300 million will be spent by North West Water over the next three years to improve bathing beaches, and I emphasise that we are talking about bathing beaches. Clearly, North West Water is facing the problem seriously and is actively intent on improving the position.
  The likely time scale is that, if there is good will, by he end of this year, and possibly before, the inland treatment works which is necessary now will have been decided upon. It should be said that it is now up to us in the north-west to agree. We have had arguments about whether there should be an outfall and other discussions. But now that we know that we are to have an inland treatment works, with an outfall, if we have the courage to fact up to the difficult decisions that have to be taken, by the end of the year, or possibly by next year, we will have a scheme which can then go ahead. There is every possibility that our problem can be solved, perhaps not in 1991 but possibly by mid-decade.
  The Government are determined that we should stop being branded as the biggest polluter in Europe, and we are grateful for the encouragement that we have had from them. Others need to help us now. If we are sensible we can cure our problems, although they are difficult, within four or five years. With the good will of the Government and North West Water, that is exactly what we shall do.
  2.28 am
  Sir Peter Blaker: I want to make two brief points. The first concerns the European Community. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to tell us now many other European Community countries are being prosecuted. I understand that every other European Community country, apart from Portugal, is in the same situation as this country in respect of prosecution. I want to dispel the impression, which is widespread in this country, that only the United Kingdom is considered by the Commission to be in breach of its directives.
  There is also a proposal that polluted beaches should be signposted. Will signposting apply to all European Community countries? I hope that I shall not be told that only the United Kingdom will be obliged to signpost beaches that do not comply with the directive.
  We should move forward with all speed to ensure that the bathing water off our beaches complies with the required European Community standards. Two points are relevant in that context. First, let all those in the north-west work together to achieve the objective that has been set before us. We should cut out the politicking; there has been much too much of it. Most of the politicking has come from the Labour leader of the Lancashire county council, Councillor Louise Ellman. I hope that she intends to keep quiet on the issue. Since the abandonment of the plan for a long sea outfall, she has called for a public inquiry. That would be wholly inappropriate; at the moment, there is nothing to inquire into because there is no plan. I hope that on both that point and others she will

  443
  keep quiet and that she will co-operate with all of us so that we can make rapid progress towards compliance with the directive.
  Secondly, I hope that the Government will investigate the possibility of using disinfectants, either in the long term or in the short term. New types of disinfectants, known as benign disinfectants which do not have adverse spin-off effects, are available. If it is necessary to test them to find out whether they are effective, I hope that that will be done rapidly. I hope to take a representative of a company that manufactures these disinfectants to see the Minister. I am optimistic that their use will achieve the desired results.
  2.31 am
  Mr. Keith Mans: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) for allowing me to take part in the debate. I thank also the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), for the recent decision by his Department to refuse consent for the construction of a long sea outfall at Fleetwood. That has been welcomed by all the people in Fleetwood. Like me, they believe that a long sea outfall, without treatment, is an unacceptable way to dispose of sewage in 1990.
  That decision need not delay an eventual solution to the sewerage problems along the Fylde coast. What would have delayed the eventual solution would have been a public inquiry, as requested by Lancashire county council. From what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), I understand that, once again, a public inquiry is being asked for, despite the fact that we do not know what scheme North West Water will devise. I urge the leader of Lancashire county council to consider what she is doing, if it would lead to delaying the opportunity that we have to work together to find a quick solution to the problems on the Fylde coast.
  I am encouraged by the attitude of North West Water, now that it is in the private sector. Right from the outset, it has consulted all the interested parties about its proposals. That is a good move. It is also clear that North West Water is no longer under the same financial constraints as it was in the public sector. It wants to get on with the job of devising the right scheme as quickly as possible. That can be done in co-operation with all the other bodies—the county council, the local authorities and other pressure groups. Together they can find a solution to the problem. If there were co-operation, the scheme could be worked up by the end of the year and considered by the National Rivers Authority. Construction could then start in May 1991. Dissension, however, could lead to the scheme having to go to the Department of the Environment. There might also have to be a public inquiry.
  The action of the European Commission in taking the Government to court is of no relevance whatsoever to the time scale for the scheme on the Fylde coast. An inquiry would not in any way help to speed that scheme, and the Government being taken to court would not affect its time scale.
  If everyone in the Fylde works together with the water company, we shall have an opportunity to find our own solution to the problem—and that solution holds out the prospect of cleaning up our coastline and rivers once and for all.
  2.34 am
  Mr. Michael Jack: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Miscampbell) for allowing me to participate in the debate. May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that beach and river pollution in the Fylde coast area has cast a blight over that lovely part of west Lancashire. If, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the problem is not addressed quickly, the development of our vital tourist industry may be significantly damaged.
  Not only do people question the wholesomeness of an area when there is endless talk of pollution, but it inhibits the development of facilities, such as the riverway marina, which starts in Preston. People wanting to use the water facilities offered by the Ribble doubt whether it is the right place to use while pollution is the subject of so much discussion.
  The beaches of Lytham St. Anne's, in my constituency, are affected by the same pollution factors that affect my right hon. and hon. Friends' constituencies in Blackpool. My constituents send a very simple message to my hon. Friend the Minister this evening: they want to see the ending of raw sewage dumping into the Ribble. It is increasing the river's bacteriological load and does riot enable it to satisfy European bathing water standards.
  The solutions are known. They are the ceasing of sewage dumping from the Fairhaven pumping station and improvements to the sewage treatment works at Preston. Both can be achieved quickly. North West Water has published a study on the river estuary that indicates a time scale extending to 1997. The message that my constituents have sent me is also simple: 1997 is not acceptable.
  This is one case where the problems and the solutions are not cash-based. Since privatisation, money has become available to the water companies in large quantities and it can be spent on known technical remedies. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to achieve quickly the requirements of the municipal waste water directive, which will finally allow North West Water to undertake the necessary design studies, in order that the resulting sewage scheme meets the entire needs of the Fylde coast area and at the same time cleans up the Ribble.
  The argument is not about NIMBY but is about what I call the IMBY syndrome—"in my back yard". We all have responsibility, and I heartily endorse the comment of my hon. Friends that we must all work together.
  I have a vested interest. When one is learning to sail in the Ribble, as I am doing at present, and capsizes one's dinghy and has to swim around in raw sewage, it brings home in graphic detail the problem that has to be dealt with.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but time does not permit me to do so.
  Mr. Jopling: Then perhaps my hon. Friend will come to Windermere instead; it will be more fun.
  Mr. Jack: That is the imagery that we must address. That is the kind of tangible factor that must be confronted. The technology and the money are available. I ask for the co-operation of my hon. Friend the Minister in urging North West Water and the National Rivers Authority to

  445
  deliver as quickly as possible a solution for the benefit of our constituents, our constituencies and our tourist industry.
  2.38 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) on securing this debate and on the way that he forcefully set out the case for a clean and safe coastline for his constituents. I was also interested by the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack). On this and on many previous occasions, they have made my Department very well aware of the feelings of their constituents and of the need to improve the beaches and bathing waters along the whole coastline, not just that around Blackpool.
  This debate is also attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). They have made known to me in private as well as publicly their concerns and their determination that something be done to clean up the coastline.
  Nationally, we sometimes paint too gloomy a picture of the state of our rivers and coastal waters. In the United Kingdom, about 96 per cent. of our population are connected to the sewerage system and 83 per cent. of our sewage is treated. That compares well with any country in Europe. The problem for us lies in the discharges of untreated sewage to some coastal waters. Such discharges have a long history. Governments of all parties have received advice that in some cases they are not only acceptable but environmentally preferable. Such advice was given as recently as 1984 by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, in its 10th report.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that there is no method of disposing of sewage that is entirely free of some environmental cost. If we treat sewage, we need to find sewage works. They must be sited somewhere, and that can lead to contentious planning issues. The sewage sludge that results from sewage treatment must be disposed of to agriculture, it must be burned, or it must be land-filled. All those methods can be unpopular and controversial.
  Nevertheless, we believe that now is the time to move forward. Following a consultant's report recently received by my Department, the Secretary of State decided, and announced on 5 March this year, that in future all substantial discharges of sewage would be treated. Most would receive secondary treatment, but primary treatment would be appropriate for coastal discharges when there was no adverse effect on the environment. This change of policy has been generally welcomed at home and abroad.
  We have since moved quickly to implement this new policy. It will be expensive, but one of the great advantages of putting the water authorities into the private sector was that they now have access to private sector capital. We will take no lectures from our political opponents about this. Under the last Labour Government, capital expenditure on water treatment was halved. The financial position now is good.
  446
  We can look forward to a sustained programme of capital improvement. We have heard this evening of the urgent need to deal with the situation around Blackpool. Not only must we take into account the residents; we know that that town and the surrounding towns, have to cope with a huge influx of visitors during the summer months—not to mention a few party conferences in the autumn.
  All this puts a considerable load on facilities, and we need to plan for a considerable expansion. So much has been known for some time. In 1988, the North West Water authority, as it then was, submitted plans to the Secretary of State for a scheme based on diverting sewage discharges from all existing sea outfalls to a new long sea outfall at Rossall point. That proved highly contentious, and some doubts were raised about the effectiveness of the scheme.
  Following the change of policy that I have outlined, Ministers were not convinced that the scheme as proposed should proceed, and on 10 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused consent because the scheme did not incorporate treatment and there was no guarantee that a suitable site for treatment works could be made available within the design of the scheme. That rejection is entirely consistent with our new policy.
  It is important to get on with the job of submitting a new scheme for treatment. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that calls for a public inquiry are entirely misconceived; there is nothing to inquire into. We need a new scheme to be submitted for planning consent, after which work could start. I hope that the scheme will be completed by the mid-1990s. That must be the priority.
  I confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South that, with regard to breaches of EC directives, we are not the only country to be subject to infraction proceedings. My advice is that all countries, except Portugal, are the subject of infraction proceedings. Britain is not alone in having to appear before the European Court of Justice.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned disinfectants, which may be a short-term palliative. There is some evidence that they do not destroy viruses, so they are only a short-term measure. As part of our policy, we are encouraging water authorities to consider improved screening and possible use of disinfectants until a proper scheme can be worked out and implemented. I welcome the way in which North West Water has announced that it will be bringing forward proposals, and much of the work that has gone into the design and construction of sewers will not be wasted, because exactly the same sewage collection system will be needed for a future scheme.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the signposting of beaches. This is a United Kingdom initiative, but it will be voluntary. We shall not make it compulsory for local authorities to erect signs showing the bathing water quality of their beaches. In line with our policy of free and open access for the public to environmental information, we feel that this information should be generally available.
  I hope that in due course, after the scheme is fully implemented, Blackpool and surrounding beaches will not only reach European standards but will perhaps proceed to designation as blue flag beaches, and there is no reason why they should not do so well before the end of the decade. In that context, I should mention that the award of a blue flag for a beach depends not only on the bathing

  447
  water quality, which is the duty of the water service company, but very much on surrounding facilities, such as information granted to the public, the fact that dogs are kept off the beach, the fact it is kept free of litter and the fact that other facilities are provided.
  I hope that the local authority will use the next few years to ensure that the bathing beaches achieve the correct standards and to put in place the other facilities so that at the earliest possible date it can apply for blue flag status. I confidently expect that, well before the end of the decade, during one of my visits to Blackpool for the party conference, I will see blue flags proudly flying over those bathing beaches. If they are, it will be not because of
  448
  premature calls, possibly politically inspired, for public inquiries but because of the technical skill and enterprise of North West Water and the political skill and perseverance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and other right hon. and hon. Friends who are present this evening, who have consistently argued for measured improvement in the beaches and coastal waters along that coast. Considerable credit must go to them for keeping this matter constantly before not only the water company but my Department.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Three o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the major achievements of his Department in the last four years.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The Government's achievements in the arts in the last four years have been numerous and varied. Among the most important I would list the following:

  The maintenance of central Government support for arts activities, and the introduction of measures to encourage greater self-reliance among arts institutions—the arts budget for this financial year stands at £494 million, and will rise by 22 per cent. by 1992–93.

  The establishment of a three-year programme of funding for the arts, to give arts bodies a firmer base from which to plan their activities.

  The introduction of corporate planning for the national museums and galleries and other non-departmental bodies, linked to the three-year funding programme.

  The major expansion schemes at some national museums and galleries, including the Clore gallery at the Tate, the new Tate gallery in Liverpool, the redevelopment of the imperial war museum, and the opening of the Victoria and Albert museum's theatre museum at Covent Garden. The building and maintenance grants to the national museums and galleries have increased by 15 per cent. in real terms over the past four years, and in December 1989 an incentive funding initiative was launched to help these institutions get their fabric into prime condition by the year 2000.

  The participation of over 2,000 museums in the Museums Year celebrations in 1989, with visitor numbers reaching over 100 million in that year.

  The Government's support for the development strategies designed to give the regions a larger share of arts spending facilities and to increase access to the arts.

  New initiatives to encourage arts bodies to market themselves more professionally and to improve the quality of their management.

  The significant and continuing upsurge in business sponsorship of the arts, encouraged by the business sponsorship incentive scheme through which nearly £33 million of new money for the arts has been raised.

  The development of incentive funding schemes for the performing arts and for public libraries, designed to encourage subsidised bodies to become more self-reliant in their development and growth.

  The maintaining of the public lending right scheme introduced in 1981, by which authors are paid for the borrowing of their books from public libraries. This year, the PLR provision is £3·5 million, and it will rise to £4·5 million in 1991–92.
  186
  The very substantial progress that has been made with the British Library's St. Pancras project, the first phase of which is on schedule for completion in 1993, still within its budget of £300 million. This will bring together most of the Library's London-based collections and reading rooms on a single site, and provide much-improved storage conditions.

  The publication of the consultative paper "Financing the Public Library Service: Four subjects for debate" prompting possibly the widest debate on the service this century, and resulting in the protection of the core of the free public library service, through the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  The continuing commitment to preserving the nation's heritage. Over £105 million of public money has gone into the national heritage memorial fund since it was established in 1980.

  The growth in the use of the acceptance in lieu of tax provisions. In 1989–90, a record level of tax was satisfied in this way, with over £11·5 million satisfied by 14 offers.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Major
  The ECOFIN Council met in Luxembourg on 11 June. The Paymaster General and I represented the United Kingdom. Future progress towards economic and monetary union was discussed and oral reports were heard from the chairmen of the central bank governors, monetary and economic policy committees and from President Delors. The Council agreed that it was important to ensure that stage 1 was successful and that more work was needed in how the Community might progress beyond that stage. It was agreed that Finance Ministers should be involved in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference on EMU. The presidency will submit a progress report to the European Council before its meeting on 25 to 26 June.

  Political agreement was reached on a package of three corporate tax measures to encourage cross-border co-operation. When finally implemented, these measures will end the double taxation of subsidiaries which transfer dividends to a parent company in another member state and will remove the tax disincentive to cross border mergers. This is a very welcome step forward and will be of real benefit to British industry.

  The Council also welcomed a report from the Commission on the main features of its new proposals for a system of VAT control and for the collection of infra-EC trade statistics after 1992. The raising of travellers' allowance was also discussed. It was agreed that the Court of Auditors report on export refunds should be submitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for urgent further consideration. The investment services directive was also discussed, and it was concluded that the Council should aim to reach a common position on the directive by 31 December 1990.

TRANSPORT

  Protected Countryside
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy concerning the avoidance of motorway and major road construction through designated protected countryside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  There has been no change in the Government's longstanding policy, which is to keep roads away from protected areas like areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest wherever possible. Special attention is also paid to the effects of new roads on inalienable land owned by the National Trust. In national parks, the Government are committed to ensuring that no new trunk route will be constructed or an existing road upgraded unless there is a compelling need which cannot be met by any reasonable alternative means.

  Carbon Canisters
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the relative cost implications to the motor industry of fitting large or small carbon canisters to motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Carbon canisters are used to control evaporative emissions from motor vehicles. The component cost is likely to range between £15 and £40. The cost of installation is difficult to estimate, but is likely to be higher for the larger canisters that are designed to capture refuelling emissions, because they are more sophisticated and require electronic controls.

  Tachographs
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has of tachograph discs in heavy goods vehicles being discarded when used up and being replaced with new ones so as to allow a further nine hours' driving time; what steps he intends taking to prevent this from happening; and if he has any plans to introduce a system of serialised tachograph discs.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department carries out checks on tachographs of heavy goods vehicles both at the roadside and at operators' premises. These can detect the person who drives for a period and then inserts a new chart. There is no evidence that this practice is common. I will write to the hon. Member shortly about the serialisation of tachograph discs.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrians were(a) killed and (b) injured, while using zebra or pelican crossings in 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  Provisional estimates are that 109 persons were killed and a further 4,978 persons injured while crossing the road using pedestrian crossings during 1989.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for failure to stop for pedestrians at a zebra crossing, since the introduction in the current year of the spot fine.
  188
  Mr. John Patten
  The information collected centrally does not separately identify fixed penalty notices issued for the offence of failing to give precedence to pedestrians at a zebra crossing.

  Motor Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last five years vehicle examiners from the Department of Transport have carried out checks on the roadworthiness of motor cars on garage forecourts in accordance with the Road Traffic Acts; and how many prosecutions have been successfully instituted.

  Mr. Atkins
  The vehicle inspectorate has not hitherto maintained separate statistics of such inspections, but is now starting to do so. Any subsequent prosecutions would normally be pursued by local authority trading standards officers.

  Jet Engines (Exhaust Fumes)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made an assessment of the potential damage being caused to the ozone layer as a result of exhaust fumes from jet engines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  For the most part, aircraft operate in the troposphere. Increasingly, however, they are reaching into the lower stratosphere and the Warren Spring laboratory has been asked to consider what contribution they might make to stratospheric ozone depletion. This is an issue that is also the subject of an extensive three-year programme of research by NASA in connection with possible future supersonic transport development programmes. These are important studies, and the results could have a bearing on future policy decisions with regard to aircraft engine emission standards.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the inspector in the M11 link road public inquiry has submitted his report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The report has been received and is under consideration together with all the objections and representations made. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will announce their decisions as soon as possible.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has received from Messrs. Eurotunnel details of the inspection procedures which will be made on cars and other vehicles before they enter the channel tunnel; and if, in particular, any progress has been made in providing X-ray machines for vehicles as referred to in the debate on 3 February 1987,Official Report, column 943;

  (2) if the intergovernmental commission and safety authority has reported to him on the safety arrangements for inspecting vehicles going into the proposed channel tunnel; and if it has indicated whether it is satisfied with the arrangements.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 11
  189
  June at column 62. Eurotunnel's designs and operating procedures in relation to safety and security are being considered in accordance with the arrangements specified in the treaty and concession agreement. Further work remains to be done before final approval can be given.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate he has received of the number of vehicles which are likely to go through the proposed channel tunnel each day.

  Mr. Freeman
  A joint working group, representing the Department of Transport, Kent county council and Eurotunnel, has forecast that an average of 10,000 vehicles per day will use the tunnel in 1993, rising to 14,000 in 2008.

  Motorways
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the number of miles of new motorways completed since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1979, 285 miles of new motorway have been completed, and 30 miles of existing motorway widened.

  Danbury Bypass
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to build a bypass around Danbury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]:This is a matter for Essex county council as local highway authority.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Alexander Bora
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now allow Mr. Alexander Bora, a United States citizen, to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Bora was refused leave to enter the United Kingdom by an immigration officer at Gatwick airport on 12 March 1987.

  So far as I am aware, Mr. Bora has not sought admission since that date. Should he do so, his case would be given full consideration in the normal way.

  Obscene Telephone Calls
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total number of prosecutions under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify offences under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 from others under the aforesaid Act.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on nationally recommended minimum standards to maintain civil defence cover.
  190
  Mr. John Patten
  There are no nationally recommended minimum standards for civil defence.

  Arson (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the National Association of Probation Officers concerning his Meibion Glyndwr police investigations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a letter from the National Association of Probation Officers calling for an independent inquiry into recent arrests by north Wales police. He replied on 11 May confirming that the chief constable had decided that the circumstances of the arrests should be investigated by a senior officer from another force under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference of the investigation being conducted by Lancashire police into the way in which North Wales police have undertaken action relating to the arson campaign in Wales; whether the investigation is into the entire sequence of police action since the arson campaign first started; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The investigation relates only to certain arrests, the circumstances of which were referred to the Police Complaints Authority by the chief constable of North Wales under section 88 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The authority approved the appointment of an investigating officer from the Lancashire constabulary and is supervising the investigation. I understand that the terms of reference are:To enquire into the circumstances leading to and surrounding the arrest of Bryn Fon, Anna Wynne-Williams, Henryd Myrddin Jones and Dyfed Wyn Thomas, to determine whether or not the police action was proper and reasonable.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which groups concerned with reforming the law on Sunday trading he has met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 1986 my ministerial colleagues and I have met individuals and groups with widely differing views on the subject. In the past year these have included representatives of OPEN (previously, the Community Shops Group), the British Hardware Federation, Keep Sunday Special Campaign, the Association of District Councils, the British Videogram Association, the Retail Consortium and the Shopping Hours Reform Council. No proposal to reform the law has yet been put forward which seems likely to command sufficient support to pro vide the basis for legislation.

  Chinese Refugees
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the refusal to grant asylum to Chinese refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Representations have been received in respect of one Chinese national who was refused asylum
  191
  here but was granted exceptional leave to remain. We have also received some 20 representations about the decision not to consider the asylum applications from 33 Chinese nationals who came here from Panama. This group has failed to comply with their terms of temporary admission and their cases will be further considered when they are traced.

  Police Buildings
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approval he has given for the acquisition or building of new police headquarters and at what cost in England and Wales since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information for force headquarters buildings is as follows:

  £ million

  1982

  Avon and Somerset force headquarters—purchase of site and preparatory works

  0·974

  1983

  Metropolitan police—Bessborough street and Vauxhall Bridge road adaptations work (lease rental £1·175 million per annum)

  1·28

  Metropolitan polioe—Drummond gate adaptations work (lease rental £1·795 million per annum)

  1·64

  1984

  Leicestershire force headquarters—phase 1

  3·655

  Dyfed Powys force headquarters

  5·9

  1989

  Thames Valley force headquarters—acquisition of site

  1·1

  Avon and Somerset force headquarters—phase 1

  4·772

  Avon and Somerset force headquarters—phase 1A

  1·5

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to value the

  Table 1

  Age

  Charge

  14–20

  21–25

  26–30

  31–35

  Over 35

  Total

  Males

  Riot

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Violent disorder

  19

  37

  20

  7

  6

  89

  Affray

  7

  10

  8

  —

  —

  25

  Public Order Act

  Section 4

  21

  45

  17

  6

  2

  41

  Section 5

  10

  18

  11

  2

  —

  41

  Grievous bodily harm

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Other assaults

  6

  22

  8

  3

  2

  41

  Burglary

  12

  8

  3

  3

  1

  27

  Theft

  12

  8

  3

  —

  —

  23

  Dishonest handling

  10

  2

  4

  —

  —

  16

  Criminal damage

  4

  15

  6

  1

  2

  28

  Arson

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Enclosed premises

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Obstructing police

  6

  11

  5

  —

  1

  23

  Highway obstruction

  8

  8

  4

  1

  1

  22

  Drunk and disorderly

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  5

  Drugs

  1

  3

  2

  —

  —

  6

  Total

  119

  195

  92

  24

  18

  1448

  Females

  Riot

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Violent disorder

  4

  4

  3

  —

  —

  11

  Affray

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  192
  police estate in England and Wales, and for the more effective management of police buildings, within the 43 Home Office inspected forces.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The ownership of the police estate is vested in police authorities, or, in the case of the Metropolitan police, the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

  Home Office circular No. 32/1987, issued in May 1987, asked the authorities to review their management of the police estate with a view to identifying accommodation and sites which are surplus to requirements, either for disposal or, where appropriate, to meet emerging new needs for accommodation. The procedures for reviewing the estate are matters for the police authorities themselves, but Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has generally expressed its satisfaction with the arrangements which have been made.

  A proposal to carry out a valuation of the Metropolitan police estate on commercially accepted principles and updating the information on a continuing basis is being considered.

  Trafalgar Square (Incident)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on those detained, following the 31 March incident in Trafalgar square, as to hose(a) released without charge, and (b) charged, by offence, and by age, sex and place of residence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that by 8 June 471 people have been arrested in connection with the disorder which occurred during and following the demonstration against the community charge which took place in London on 31 March. Of these, 58 were subsequently released without charge.

  The information readily available about the charges preferred and the age and sex of those charged with these offences is set out in table 1:
  193

  Age

  Charge

  14–20

  21–25

  26–30

  31–35

  Over 35

  Total

  Public Order Act

  Section 4

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  8

  Section 5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Grievous bodily harm

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other assaults

  2

  4

  2

  —

  —

  8

  Burglary

  7

  —

  —

  1

  —

  8

  Theft

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Dishonest handling

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Criminal damage

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Arson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enclosed premises

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Obstructing police

  2

  3

  3

  —

  —

  8

  Highway obstruction

  1

  3

  1

  —

  1

  6

  Drunk and disorderly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drugs

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  28

  20

  12

  1

  2

  163

  1 Some individuals may be charged with more than one offence.

  The stated place of residence of those arrested (including those subsequently released without charge) is set out in table 2:

  Table 2

  Numbers

  London

  245

  No Fixed Abode

  31

  Essex

  21

  Hampshire

  15

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  Surrey

  16

  Kent

  14

  Hertfordshire

  9

  Sussex

  9

  Yorkshire

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  Berkshire

  7

  Greater Manchester

  6

  Lancashire

  5

  West Midlands

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  Merseyside

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  Dyfed

  3

  Humberside

  3

  Leicestershire

  3

  Suffolk

  3

  Oxfordshire

  3

  Wiltshire

  3

  Eire

  3

  Channel Islands

  2

  Cleveland

  2

  Dorset

  2

  Spain

  1

  Malta

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  Devon

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  Worcestershire

  1

  Glamorgan

  1

  Dumfries

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  France

  1

  Strathclyde

  1

  Rosshire

  1

  Gwent

  1

  Total

  471

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to review the effectiveness of the current provisions to prevent undue pain and suffering in experimentation on live animals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the annual number of lethal dose toxicity tests permitted over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Lethal dose toxicity tests have been separately identified in the statistics since 1987. The numbers of such tests carried out in 1987 and 1988 are published in table 14—columns 8 and 9—of the annual "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain" for 1987 and 1988, Cm. 515 and 743. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has made to the pharmaceutical and other commercial companies undertaking tests on live animals to move towards alternative methods of testing;

  (2) what further steps he proposes to encourage provision for alternative methods for use in basic research in toxicity testing and drug development to replace experimentation on live animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is a fundamental principal of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that animals are used in scientific procedures, for whatever purposes, only where there are no alternatives to their use. All applicants for a project licence issued under the Act must satisfy the Home Office that they have given thorough consideration to the scope for using alternative methods not involving animals.

  While the use of animals for research and safety testing will remain necessary for the foreseeable future, those involved in animal procedures are well aware of the need to move towards non-animal techniques whenever possible. Work involving living animals is not permitted where alternatives exist.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report those

  195
  organisations which have received grants from Her Majesty's Government for research into replacement alternatives to experimentation on live animals indicating the amount of the grant in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1984 financial assistance was provided to two organisations concerned with animals in research. Some £185,000 was given to the fund for the replacement of animals in medical experiments (FRAME) to help with three projects: a feasibility study of validation of in vitro techniques which might replace animal experiments; work on a possible database of tissue culture techniques; and on examination of the use of human tissue cultures instead of animals in medical research and toxicity testing. Some £30,000 was given to the universities federation for animal welfare (UFAW) to support an evaluation of the effects of various cage sizes and social groupings on the well-being of laboratory rats.

  With the passing of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Home Office established a scheme which is administered by a sub-committee of the Animal Procedures Committee to grant aid research to reduce, refine or replace the use of living animals in scientific procedures. The Home Office also funds research concerned with the welfare of laboratory animals. In 1988–89, the first year of the operation of the scheme, it was decided to fund the following four projects:

  (i) Dr. P. A. Botham and Dr. G. J. A. Oliver, ICI Central Toxicology Laboratory. "Validation of an enucleated eye model" (£26,700 over two years)

  (ii) Dr. A. F. Bristow and Dr. S. Poole, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. "Assay of Pyrogens measuring lymphokine production in vitro". (£72,700 over three years)

  (iii) Dr. A. Robinson, Public Health Laboratory Service "Alternative potency tests for cellular pertenssis". (£9,800 over three years)

  (iv) Dr. R. M. Stagg, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Scotland "Fish cell culture for toxicity assessment". (£25,700 over two years)

  In 1989–90 it was decided to fund the following projects:

  (i) Dr. M. E. G. Boursell, AFRC Institute for Animal Health. "Recombinant vaccine against infectious burial disease virus". (£77,700 over three years)

  (ii) Dr. M. Ferguson, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. "The use of in vitro assays for the potency of rabies vaccines". (£10,000 over two years)

  (iii) Mr. A. Knight, Wellcome Research Laboratories. "A replacement for the clostridium chauvoei vaccine potency test". (£67,000 over three years).

  (iv) Professor D. B. Morton, University of Birmingham. "Evaluation of welfare in the husbandry of laboratory rabbits". (£59,900 over three years).

  In addition, on the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee research sub-committee, the Home Office commissioned a report of an investigation into antibody production. The Home Office has also supported, and part-funded, international work on acute toxicity testing aimed at further reducing the need for formal LD50 tests.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the number of experiments on live animals carried out in each year since the 1986 provisions took effect, showing how many animals were used for scientific testing in each year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is published in table 18 of "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1988", Cm. 743, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his consideration of the representations made on behalf of Mr. Colin Wallace concerning his conviction, referred to in a letter of 4 June from Mr. J. H. Miller, Private Secretary to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, to Mr. Wallace.

  Mr. John Patten
  We hope to be able to reply shortly to the latest representations made on Mr. Wallace's behalf regarding the safety of his conviction.

  Plutonium Contamination
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on plans or studies that assess the measures that would have to be taken by the police or civil defence authorities in the event of widespread contamination by airborne plutonium resulting from a nuclear weapons accident aboard a Royal Navy ship docked at Greenwich.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to a question from the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 8 June, at column 724.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to investigate the allegations made by Arthur Lane of alleged war crimes committed by Kiyoaki Tanara and Shigeyuki Hashimoto; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 22 May.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Repossession
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number of private mortgage possession orders granted in each English region, for the years(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d)

  The Attorney-General
  The number of private mortgage possession orders made in county courts in England for the years 1986 to 1989 are as follows. The numbers of such orders made in the six circuits within England are also given.

  Private mortgage possession orders granted in England 1986–89

  Circuit

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Midland and Oxford

  9,382

  9,304

  8,405

  8,756

  North Eastern

  6,548

  7,727

  7,221

  5,847

  Northern

  6,323

  7,342

  8,167

  7,984

  South Eastern

  11,300

  11,738

  11,844

  18,832

  Wales and Chester

  714

  811

  564

  647

  Western

  4,784

  4,861

  4,160

  5,027

  England total

  39,051

  41,513

  40,361

  47,093

  The figures given for Wales and Chester circuit exclude private mortgage possession orders granted in Wales.

  Divorce
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on progress towards a fair and equitable system for all parties in divorce with particular regard to maintenance of, and access to, the children involved.

  The Attorney-General
  The Children Act 1989 represents a major reform of the law relating to children including access to them. It is, however, only a first step in a programme to review family law and its administration which includes consideration of the Law Commission's expected report on divorce later this year, conciliation arrangements and the Government's current consideration of the assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance.

  In considering and implementing policy on all these matters, the Government recognise the need for fairness and equity, but regard the interests of the child as their first priority.

  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on developments since the Director of Public Prosecutions was in touch with Greater Manchester police about the outcome of the trial of Kevin Taylor.

  The Attorney-General
  The question of any action subsequent to the DPP's letter of 19 January 1990 to the chief constable of Greater Manchester is one for the chief constable alone.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to grant specific relief or exemption from part of the community charge for those couples who are both blind.

  Mr. Chope
  Disabled people, including those who are registered as blind, can already receive higher levels of community charge benefit, which may reduce bills by up to 80 per cent, because of their disability. The income level at which they are entitled to maximum community charge benefit, and where the sliding scale of reductions begins, is higher than for other people. A disabled person who is not a former ratepayer or the partner of a former ratepayer may also be entitled to extra transitional relief.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the inquiries or audits undertaken by the Audit Commission on the finances of individual local authorities in 1990.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: As for every financial year, auditors appointed by the Audit Commission will undertake audits of the accounts of all local authorities for 1990–91. Information on public interest reports made by auditors to local authorities under section 15 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 is held by the Audit Commission.

  Beaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that hoteliers and business are compensated against loss of earnings as a result of drops in the tourist trade due to dirty beaches.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  Water Charges
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternative methods of charging for water supply and sewerage disposal for domestic customers have been discussed between him and chairmen of water companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. Subject to the general supervision exercised by the Director General of Water Services, it is a matter for each water company to decide what methods of charging to adopt for its services before charging by rateable value is prohibited in the year 2000.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimated costs of installing meters in all properties now charged on rateable values.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No estimates have been prepared. The cost of installing meters depends on a variety of factors and in some cases installation may not prove practical without excessive cost. I understand that information on the costs of installing meters will be contained in the second interim report on the national metering trials which the water industry intends to publish early in July. The decision whether to install meters on a wide scale will be taken by each water company, in the light of all the circumstances in its area and under the general supervision of the Director General of Water Services.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's contribution to the water meter trials by area; and what is the total cost of each water meter trial.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The latest estimated cost of each metering trial and the Government's contribution to each trial is shown in the following table:

  Total cost £

  Government contribution £

  Isle of Wight (Southern Water)

  16,133,000

  7,394,000

  Chandlers Ford (Southern Water)

  124,700

  62,350

  Chorleywood (Rickmansworth Water Company)

  220,000

  nil

  Briston-Hotwells (Bristol Waterworks Company)

  331,300

  165,650

  Haling Park (Thames Water)

  548,400

  274,200

  Bromsgrove (East Worcestershire Waterworks Company)

  382,500

  191,250

  Brookmans Park (Lee Valley Water Company)

  694,200

  347,100

  Turlin Moor (Wessex Water)

  197,500

  98,750

  Broadstone (Wessex Water)

  307,000

  153,500

  Camberley (Mid Southern Water Company)

  319,600

  159,800

  Hutton Rudby (Northumbrian Water)

  331,200

  165,600

  South Normanton (Yorkshire Water)

  375,800

  187,900

  199
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Director General of Water Services to ensure that competition is assured in the provision of water services in Yorkshire and value for money is obtained by consumers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. The Water Act requires the director general, in carrying out his regulatory functions, to protect the interests of customers in respect of charges and other terms on which services are provided, to promote economy and efficiency on the part of appointed companies and to facilitate effective competition, subject to the primary duties to ensure that water and sewerage functions are properly carried out and that appointed undertakers can finance the proper carrying out of those functions.

  In setting the initial charges limits for the companies the Secretary of State was subject to the same duties. He took account of the comparative efficiency of each company and incorporated target efficiency savings in the cost projections on which the charge limits were based.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will consider making adjustments to the payment of the uniform business rates to help with the loss of the former business rates paid to the town and parish councils; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received from town and parish councils over the introduction of the community charge and the uniform business rate and their effects on financing local government; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he intends to take action to assist in the retention of town and parish councils where the reform of the business rate is having some effect on their future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received many representations from town and parish councils about the introduction of the community charge and the uniform business rate, and about the effects on financing local government. District councils have powers to assist town and parish councils in meeting their costs. The new system means that all councils are now accountable to their charge payers for their decisions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what evidence he has of evasion by hotels, guest houses and tourist accommodation of their obligations to pay the uniform business rate;

  (2) if he has any plans to investigate the use of the fire certificate threshold of six letting bed spaces as a suitable starting point for imposition of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: I have no evidence of such evasion. I have received representations from home owners providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a more generous exemption than the 99-day maximum which currently operates: but others, particularly the hotel trade, believe that any exemption in this area could lead to unfair competition. The tourist authorities have represented that the existing exemption could lead to a shortening of the season in which some accommodation is available. We are considering these arguments and others that have been put to us.

  River Quality
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the criteria used to determine river quality are identical throughout the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Member states each use different systems for monitoring and assessing river quality. A review of the various European systems prepared for the Department in 1987 included a comparison of the quality of European rivers according to the classification system in use in England and Wales. This showed that 95 per cent. of river length in the United Kingdom was of good or fair quality compared with 75 per cent. in the European Community as a whole. The review showed that no other member state bettered our position.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the respective percentage of registered disabled persons who are employed by each urban development corporation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  At 1 April 1990, the percentage of registered disabled people employed by London Docklands development corporation was 0·7 per cent. and by Trafford Park development corporation 2·3 per cent. The other corporations currently employ no registered disabled people.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent of his programme to monitor the presence of viruses in sewage discharges; and what research is being undertaken to establish any possible health implications resulting from the presence of viruses in sewage discharges.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The monitoring of sewage discharges is a matter for the National Rivers Authority. The Department has commissioned research into the health effects of bathing in sea water, and the results are expected to be available soon.

  Housing Action Trusts, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department intends to proceed with proposals for housing action trusts for the Angell and Loughborough estates in Lambeth.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Shopping Facilities
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest guidance given to local planning authorities regarding the design of new shopping facilities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Planning policy guidance note 6 sets out the Government's general planning policies for major retail development. My right hon. Friend's statement of 6 March, about standards of design for major new buildings, made it clear that considerations such as the density and bulk of a development, and its compatibility with its
  201
  surroundings, may be relevant planning issues. Only exceptionally should planning authorities seek to control design details, if the sensitive character of the area or the particular building justifies it.

  Sea Birds (Poisoning)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken to establish any possible adverse environmental impact resulting from the discharge into the sea from the north Norfolk coast of glycol; what permissions exist in respect of such discharges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority and the former Anglian water authority have undertaken extensive monitoring of discharges of glycol and a survey of the receiving waters off the north Norfolk coast over the past two years. The results have shown that the discharges are having no detectable impact on the North sea.

  Details of discharge consents and information from routine monitoring of the discharges are held on the public registers maintained by the Anglian region of the National Rivers Authority, under the terms of the Water Act 1989.

  Local Government (Legislation)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the Acts of Parliament made in each year from 1969 to 1989 which relate to(a) local government and (b) local government finance.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Public general Acts of Parliament between January 1969 and June 1979 which affect local authorities in England include

  Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969*

  Mines and Quarries (Tips) 1969

  Nuclear Installations Act 1969

  Tattooing of Minors Act 1969

  Public Health (Removing Nuisances) Act 1969

  Vehicles and Driving Licences Act 1969

  Housing Act 1969

  Transport (London) Act 1969

  Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969

  Children and Young Persons Act 1969

  Transport (London) Amendment Act 1969*

  Expiring Laws Act 1969

  Rent (Control of Increases) Act 1969

  Police Act 1969

  Food and Drugs (Milk) Act 1970

  Local Employment Act 1970

  Education (School Milk) Act 1970

  General Rate Act 1970*

  New Forest Act 1970

  Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970

  Riding Establishments Act 1970

  Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970

  Local Authority Social Services Act 1970

  Trees Act 1970

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

  Indecent Advertisements (Amendment) Act 1970

  Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970

  Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Act 1970

  Courts Act 1971

  Water Resources Act 1971

  Rating Act 1971*

  Fire Precautions Act 1971

  Highways Act 1971

  Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1971

  Education (Milk) Act 1971

  Housing Act 1971

  Town and Country Planning Act 1971

  Local Employment Act 1972

  Road Traffic Act 1972

  202

  Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972

  Sunday Theatre Act 1972

  Police Act 1972

  Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972

  Children Act 1972

  Housing Finance Act 1972*

  Local Government Act 1972*

  National Theatre and Museum of London Act 1973

  Housing (Amendment) Act 1973

  Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973

  Fire Precautions (Loans) Act 1973*

  Education Act 1973

  Education (Work Experience) Act 1973

  Employment of Children Act 1973

  Land Compensation 1973

  Rate Rebate Act 1973*

  National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973

  Employment Agencies Act 1973

  Water Act 1973

  Fair Trading Act 1973

  Maplin Development Act 1973

  Slaughterhouses Act 1974

  Local Government Act 1974*

  Charlwood and Horley Act 1974

  Town and Country Amenities Act 1974

  Control of Pollution Act 1974

  Housing Act 1974

  Education Act 1975

  General Rate Act 1975*

  Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975*

  Reservoirs Act 1975

  Referendum Act 1975

  Nursing Homes Act 1975

  Mobile Homes Act 1975

  Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975*

  Children Act 1975

  Local Land Charges Act 1975

  Community Land Act 1975

  Education (School-Leaving Dates) Act 1976

  Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976*

  Police Pensions Act 1976

  Adoption Act 1976

  Foods and Drugs (Control of Food Premises) Act 1976

  Rating (Charity Shops) Act 1976*

  Police Act 1976

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Act 1976

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

  New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976

  Weights and Measures &c. Act 1976

  Education Act 1976

  General Rate (Public Utilities) Act 1977*

  Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1977

  Control of Office Development Act 1977

  Local Authorities (Restoration of Works Powers) Act 1977

  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977

  Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978

  European Assembly Elections Act 1978

  Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978*

  Local Government Act 1978

  Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978*

  Homes Insulation Act 1978

  Inner Urban Areas Act 1978

  Public Lending Right Act 1979

  Acts relating (at least in part) to local government finance are marked with an asterisk (*).

  For Acts after June 19791 refer the hon. Member to the answer of my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to the hon. Member for Copeland on 4 May at columns 676–78.

  Bathing Water Directives
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what beaches in Europe outside the United Kingdom are subject to legal proceedings for failing to meet the bathing water directives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the Commission is pursuing legal proceedings against all member states except Portugal in respect of directive 76/160/EEC.

  The Commission has powers under the EC treaty to take proceedings against individual member states which it considers are not complying with their obligations under the treaty. It is for the Commission to decide when to commence such legal proceedings.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the effects of the community charge on grant aid to local voluntary organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government monitor the main categories of expenditure of local authorities, which this year will be affected by the introduction of the community charge and the level of charges, but the grant aid which local authorities provide to voluntary organisations is a matter for them to decide, not the Government.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the effects on grant aid to local voluntary organisations of local authorities not recovering the level of community charge anticipated when preparing their budget.

  Mr. Chope
  If authorities collect charges efficiently, there is no reason why the cash volume of arrears should be greater than under the rating system. There is no reason why local authorities, or those voluntary organisations which receive grant aid from local authorities, need be in any way disadvantaged in the way the right hon. Member implies.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all groups and organisations within the Sunderland borough council area that have received urban programme support in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91; and if he will identify the level of grant received in each case and any conditions attached.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I regret that the detailed information is not readily available to the Department. However, Sunderland borough council, as managers of the urban programme, should be able to provide the information requested direct to the hon. Member.

  Builders and Decorators
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans for, or anticipates direction from the European Commission on plans for, a standard registration for all builders and decorators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such proposals, nor does he anticipate any from the European Commission.
  204
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the protection available to individuals who receive unsatisfactory service from people purporting to be builders and decorators; and how this is likely to change after 1992.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, in contracts for the supply of services, which would include building and decorating, the service must be carried out with reasonable care and skill. Any materials used must be of "merchantable quality", and fit for the job in hand. If the builder or decorator fails in these obligations, the law treats the matter as a breach of contract and the consumer may then look to him for redress through the courts. A number of trade associations operate insurance-backed guarantee schemes, offering protection for the individual against the "cowboy" builder. The Office of Fair Trading is also working with the industry to devise a model fair deal contract for small home improvement works and is examining how an industry-led body could carry out the assessment and approval of insurance-backed guarantee schemes.

  The position would be unaffected by current proposals for the completion of the single European market.

  Homelessness (Sunderland)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) families and (b) single people accepted as homeless within the borough of Sunderland area are at present in (i) bed-and-breakfast accommodation, (ii) other forms of temporary accommodation and (iii) of no fixed abode, and are in receipt of state benefits.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest available figures for the number of homeless households in bed-and-breakfast and other forms of temporary accommodation are for the end of December 1989. These appear in table 7 of "Local authorities" action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England; Results for the fourth quarter of 1989; Supplementary Tables", which is the Library.

  The number of single people among the households accepted as homeless is not reported to the Department by local authorities and we have no estimates.

  Statistics on the numbers of homeless people in temporary accommodation or of no fixed abode and in receipt of state benefits are not available centrally in the form requested.

  Bottled Water
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibility his Department has for bottled drinking waters.

  Mr. Trippier
  Responsibility for regulating the quality of the two main categories of bottled waters—natural mineral water and artificially carbonated mineral or spring water—lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Responsibility for any other bottled water has hitherto fallen to the Secretary of State for the Environment, because my right hon. Friend has overall responsibility for EC directive 80/778 on the quality of water intended for human consumption.

  The existence of separate legal and administrative regimes for different types of bottled water has inevitably caused confusion to producers, local authorities and the

  205
  public. The current Food Safety Bill will make it possible to establish a single regime under the Food Acts and the food hygiene regulations for all types of bottled water. The Prime Minister has therefore agreed that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the Agriculture Ministers in Wales and Scotland, and the Minister for Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, should in future have ministerial responsibility for all types of bottled water.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of dwellings in each district in England are insulated to the standard recommended by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: Information at district level is not available. Nationally, we estimate that 90 per cent. of dwellings with accessible lofts have insulation and 15 per cent. of all dwellings have cavity wall insulation. The proportion which meet the

  Households by number of adults and sex and ethnic group of head of household: 1988 England

  (a) Number of households (thousand)

  Sex and ethnic group of head of household

  Single pensioner

  Other single adult

  Two adults

  Three or more adults

  1All

  Males

  Indian

  1

  5

  111

  68

  186

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  1

  3

  70

  23

  98

  West Indian

  2

  24

  65

  25

  116

  Other

  3

  26

  112

  37

  178

  All ethnic minorities

  7

  59

  359

  152

  578

  White

  587

  1,180

  9,247

  2,417

  13,433

  All ethnic groups

  595

  1,239

  9,606

  2,569

  14,011

  Female All ethnic minorities

  16

  101

  36

  13

  166

  White

  2,135

  1,343

  712

  203

  4,396

  All ethnic groups

  2,151

  1,445

  748

  217

  4,563

  All

  Indian

  4

  17

  119

  73

  212

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  1

  8

  71

  24

  104

  West Indian

  6

  78

  80

  30

  194

  Other

  12

  58

  125

  39

  234

  All ethnic minorities

  23

  160

  395

  166

  744

  White

  2,723

  2,524

  9,959

  2,620

  17,830

  All ethnic groups

  2,746

  2,684

  10,354

  2,786

  18,574

  (b) Percentage of all households

  Sex and ethnic group of head of household

  Single pensioner

  Other single adult

  Two adults

  Three or more adults

  1All

  Male

  Indian

  1

  3

  60

  37

  100

  Pakistan/Bangladeshi

  1

  3

  72

  24

  100

  West Indian

  2

  21

  56

  22

  100

  Other

  2

  15

  63

  21

  100

  All ethnic minorities

  1

  10

  62

  26

  100

  White

  4

  9

  69

  18

  100

  All ethnic groups

  4

  9

  69

  18

  100

  Female

  All ethnic minorities

  10

  61

  22

  8

  100

  206
  higher standards of thermal insulation required by new building regulations, introduced in April this year, is not known.

  Household Statistics
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total number of households in England and the numbers and percentages of those households which are(a) single-pensioner households, (b) other single-adult households, (c) two-adult households and (d) three or more adult households;

  (2) what are the numbers and percentages of total households, broken down by sex and racial composition, of people living in (a) single-pensioner households, (b) other single-adult households, (c) two-adult households and (d) three or more adult households in England.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: The available estimates from the 1988 labour force survey are as follows:
  207

  Sex and ethnic group of head of household

  Single pensioner

  Other single adult

  Two adults

  Three or more adults

  1All

  White

  49

  31

  16

  5

  100

  All ethnic groups

  47

  32

  16

  5

  100

  All

  Indian

  2

  8

  56

  34

  100

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  1

  8

  68

  23

  100

  West Indian

  3

  40

  41

  15

  100

  Other

  5

  25

  53

  17

  100

  All ethnic minorities

  3

  22

  53

  22

  100

  White

  15

  14

  56

  15

  100

  All ethnic groups

  15

  14

  56

  15

  100

  1 Includes a small number of households with no adults.

  Source:—1988 Labour force Survey—estimates are subject to sampling is too small to provide the same breakdown as for male heads.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Jonathan Moyle
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the death of Mr. Jonathan Moyle in Chile; whether any official of Her Majesty's Government has made a statement as to cause and nature of his death; and what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from Mr. Moyle's family.

  The Prime Minister
  The tragic death of Mr. Jonathan Moyle is under investigation by the Chilean authorities. Her Majesty's coroner for Exeter and East Devon has also opened an inquest. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to make a statement at this time. No official statement has been made by any Government Department or agency in London or by the British embassy in Santiago as to the cause of. Moyle's death. Consular officials in London are in regular contact with Mr. Moyle's family.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria have been used since October 1989 when separating papers relating to Mr. Wallace's case between 10 Downing street, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments are given copies of relevant papers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers of employees in each public organisation by the Fair Employment Agency's definition of Protestant and Roman Catholics in(a) the Omagh council area and (b) with a postcode BT79 for those companies or organisations on the fair employment register.

  Mr. Needham
  Of the 101 public authorities specified in the Fair Employment (Specification of Public Authorities) Order (NI) 1989, only two—Omagh district council and the Western education and library board—have registered addresses in Omagh. The number of employees in the former is 293 and in the latter 3,514.
  208
  The only public authorities with registered addresses with a postcode of BT79 are Omagh district council and the Western education and library board.

  The Fair Employment Commission is not releasing information on community composition from individual monitoring returns at present.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish the Planning Appeals Commission's report on the public inquiry into the SIBEC (Scotland) Ltd., proposals for a shopping centre, food court and leisure facilities at Bloomfield road, Bangor; and if he will treat the matter as an issue of urgency.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Planning decisions on the applications submitted by SIBEC (Scotland) Ltd. were issued on 5 June 1990 and the report of the Planning Appeals Commission on the public inquiry is now available for public inspection or purchase. A copy of the report was sent to the hon. Gentleman for his information on 7 June.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present level of unemployment in Londonderry city; and what were the corresponding figures in 1969, 1972, 1979 and 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  April 1990 (latest available)

  7,588

  April 1985

  9,070

  Similar information is not available prior to 1984.

  "Making Belfast Work"
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of the names and addresses of groups which have received money under the "Making Belfast Work" initiative since it was set up and the corresponding amount given to each group in the relevant financial years.
  209
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: In view of the large amount of material to be collated, I will write to the hon. Member and place copies of the information in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Romania and Bulgaria
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to visit Romania; and what steps are being taken to promote trading opportunities there;

  (2) what plans he has to visit Bulgaria; and what steps are being taken to promote trading opportunities there.

  Mr. Redwood
  At present, my right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Romania or Bulgaria. My Department promotes United Kingdom trade with both countries by providing companies with information about economic conditions and about specific business opportunities; by using joint commissions and other official contacts to find out as much as we can about local economic policies and priorities; and to support British companies pursuing significant business. I myself led a delegation to Romania in February 1990, and senior officials have recently visited Bulgaria.

  Additionally, in Bulgaria, we are supporting trade promotion events such as the Plovdiv autumn fair; and we would support similar events in Romania.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken on waste minimisation in industry; how many staff are employed in this area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Waste minimisation in industry is a key focus of my Department's environmental programme. In November 1989, the Department published a business guide to waste minimisation called "Cutting Your Losses". Some 29,000 copies of the booklet have been taken up so far. The Department and the Confederation of British Industry are currently running a series of regional seminars to inform businesses of the requirements of new legislation on waste and to promote waste minimisation.

  The Department's environmental inquiry point at Warren Spring laboratory gives general advice to business on a range of environmental issues including waste minimisation; and smaller firms needing more detailed advice from consultants can receive assistance under the Department's consultancy initiatives. My Department is also assisting the development of new environmental technologies through a growing range of initiatives.

  Separate figures for the amount of staff time devoted specifically to waste minimisation are not available, but the topic involves many members of the Department's environment task force and they also call upon assistance and advice, for example from the Department's research establishments and regional offices, as well as from external organisations.

  Single Market
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give consideration to amending the terms of reference of the Office of Fair Trading and the 210
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of Britain's forthcoming membership of the single European market.

  Mr. Redwood
  The achievement of the single European market does not require changes in the statutory duties of the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Fair Trading Act provisions allow the director and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to take account of competition from outside the United Kingdom—whether from in the Community or elsewhere—in looking at whether a merger would damage competition in the United Kingdom. Mergers with a Community dimension as defined by the EC merger control regulation will, from 21 September this year, be subject to examination by the European Commission. Under the regulation, mergers leading to or strengthening a dominant position and significantly impeding competition in the Common Market will be prohibited by the Commission. The director and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will retain their important competition responsibilities within the United Kingdom, including responsibility for mergers outside the scope of the regulation.

  Harrods Bank
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to hear from the Bank of England regarding Harrods bank.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend hopes to hear from the bank before long.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and the Bank of England concerning the control of Harrods Bank Ltd.; and whether the Bank has been sent any recommendations for action since receiving the official investigation report in August 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department sent the report to the Bank of England in view of the Bank's regulatory responsibilities under the Banking Act.

  It is for the bank alone to determine whether any action by it is required under that Act.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the members of the Financial Reporting Council, together with other relevant information as to their experience, directorships and partnerships.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 5 June at column 435.

  City Regulation
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's latest assessment of the effectiveness of City regulation.

  Mr. Redwood
  Regulation of investment business is for the most part the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board, which is the designated agency under the Financial Services Act 1986. Other aspects of City activity are regulated under other arrangements. such as
  211
  the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the Banking Act 1987. I am generally satisfied with this regulatory structure.

  Overseas Trade
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase the profitability of overseas trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is for individual companies to consider how best to increase their profitability.

  Packaging
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to encourage industry to reduce the amount of packaging used for products.

  Mr. Forth
  The promotion of waste minimisation in general is a key focus of my Department's environmental programme. The need to minimise packaging and, where essential packaging is concerned, to use materials which lend themselves to recycling, is being promoted through my Department's participation in relevant seminars and conferences and through meetings with representatives from the packaging industry.

  In March, my Department was co-organiser with the Institute of Metals of an international conference which discussed all aspects of the design of products so as to avoid harm to the environment, including the minimisation of packaging. An example of a product designed with reduced packaging in mind is included in the booklet "Design for the Environment", which my Department has produced with assistance from the Design Council.

  Caravans
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that all caravans meet fire safety standards.

  Mr. Forth
  The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations came into force, with respect to caravans, on 1 March 1990. Their enforcement is a matter for the trading standards departments of the local authorities, which have the necessary powers to inspect businesses selling caravans.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the cost to the caravan industry of complying with fire safety legislation in March 1990 instead of 1991.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's cost compliance assessment of improving the fire safety in caravans by the introduction of the 1988 regulations estimated the cost to the industry to be between £3 million and £4 million per annum.

  Public Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department takes to ensure that correspondence with firms and trade associations relating to public safety is received and acknowledged.

  Mr. Forth
  Every effort is made to send prompt replies to all letters asking questions, seeking information or 212
  raising issues about product safety. The views of a wide range of trade associations, consumer bodies and representative organisations are sought by the Department on matters relating to product safety. These views are always taken into account but not all such correspondence requires an individual response. If the hon. Member is concerned about a specific case, perhaps he would let me have the details so that I can investigate the matter.

  Bank Accounts
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made on the implementation of the European Community's bank accounts directive.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department intends to issue a consultative document before the recess inviting comments on draft regulations to implement the EC bank accounts directive. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The directive establishes common rules in relation to the content, valuation methods, audit and publication of the individual and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions.

  The consultative document will report on the responses to the consultative document issued on 31 July 1989, and will explain the decisions which have been taken on the scope of application of the directive and on the way in which the member state options it contains should be exercised. It will also explain that, in the light of the arguments presented in the responses to the consultative document issued last year, and the significant progress which has been made recently in the development of statements of recommended accounting practice (SORPs) and of an international accounting standard aimed at providing fuller disclosure in the accounts of banks and similar financial institutions, the Government have decided not to include disclosure requirements in the regulations which go beyond those in the directive but to leave the banking industry to develop its own response to the need for fuller disclosure. However, the consultative document will make it clear that, if there is undue delay in the preparation of appropriate SORPs, the option of legislating to impose such requirements will be reconsidered.

  Iraq (Trade Losses)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the cost to public funds of payments made during the last three years to compensate creditors for losses in respect of trade to Iraq; and when the last such payment was actually made.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: I am replying to this question, since I believe that it relates to ECGD's operation.

  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to publish details on individual countries arising from the operation of ECGD cover, not least since this could prejudice the position of the commercial parties involved.

  Live Horses (Export)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy insofar as his Department's responsibilities are concerned not to allow the export of live horses to Europe for slaughter to start again.
  213
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not responsible for the live export of horses to Europe, which is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Hunterprint
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the company Hunterprint had, or has outstanding, any printing contracts for work associated with privatisations by his Department since 1983.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Hunterprint has not been engaged as primary contractors for printing but may have been used as a subcontractor on DTI privatisations. However, this information is not available within the Department and to obtain it would be at disproportionate cost.

  Trade in Services
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the proposed GATT framework agreement on trade in services; when he expects the European Community to reach a common position on this matter; and whether the Commission is insisting on the inclusion of financial services in the agreement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: The Government attach a high priority to achieving, as part of the GATT Uruguay round, an agreement which will extend GATT rules and discipline to trade in services. The United Kingdom and the European Community are aiming for a comprehensive agreement, covering all service sectors, including financial services.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects supported by the eastern Europe know-how fund to date.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 14 March at column 236. The additional activities approved since then under the know-how fund are as follows:

  Poland

  Consultancy assistance in advising on inward investment applications to the Foreign Investment Agency—£100,000.

  Four privatisation consultancies for the Privatisation Foundation—£1,600,000.

  Secondment of an accountant and secretary to the Privatisation Foundation—£112,000.

  Secondment of three expatriates to the Export Development Bank—£600,000.

  Audit studies of nine commercial banks—£200,000.

  Company doctor training for official and private sector participants—£350,000.

  Advanced corporate finance training for commercial bank staff—£15,000.

  Assistance with auditing standards and establishment of a professional body—£250,000.

  Advice on accountancy standards to the Accountancy Association of Poland—£15,000.

  214

  Provision of accountancy books to university libraries and management training institutions—£275,000

  Four workshops for accountants with particular reference to joint ventures—£137,000.

  Short-term industrial attachments with British companies in cooperation with the Confederation of British Industry—£270,000.

  Secondment of an adviser on financial markets to the Ministry of Finance—£100,000.

  Assistance to the Ministries of Industry and Finance for industrial restructuring—£300,000.

  Four consultancies in the energy sector looking at the economic restructuring of the hard coal, oil and gas, lignite and electricity sectors, and a study on gas pricing —£1,600,000.

  Management training for Polish railways—£150,000.

  Hungary

  Secondment of two staff to the State Property Agency—£350,000.

  Management training course for the National Savings Bank—£55,000.

  Small enterprise development project managed by B'nai B'rith—£150,000.

  Short-term attachments by all 14 State Secretaries—£35,000.

  Czechoslovakia

  Follow-up visit by Czechoslovak employment officials—£8,000.

  Seminar attended by Czechoslovak environmental officials—£13,000.

  Health workshops for Civil Forum and the Ministry of Health —£13,000.

  Study tour of Czechoslovak social security officials—£4,000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 6 June to the questions by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on income support, what information is maintained at(a) national and (b) sub-national level on the numbers of, and expenditure on, people on income support living in private residential care.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on all income support claimants is collected by way of quarterly and annual 1 per cent. samples of live cases in each local office. This method means that, for the small population of claimants in homes, reliable information is limited to numbers of claimants and expenditure at national level. Reliable data on claimant numbers at regional level can be obtained from averages of a number of quarterly surveys.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 6 June to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on severe disablement allowance, what information is maintained at(a) national and (b) sub-national level on numbers in receipt of the severe disablement allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on severe disablement allowance is maintained as follows:

  A return is made every calendar month by each local office producing a figure comprising the number of claimants to the benefit and including those cases where final action is still outstanding although benefit has ceased. These figures are collated regionally and nationally.
  215
  Additional statistics based on a 1 per cent. sample of cases, are produced once a year for Great Britain and for standard statistical regions. Reliable figures cannot be produced for any smaller geographical area.

  For completeness, pursuant to my reply on 6 June, I would add that information on recipients of the income support severe disability premium is maintained at a national and regional level.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 June to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on attendance allowance, what information is maintained at(a) national and (b) sub-national level on the numbers in receipt of attendance allowance and payments from the independent living fund.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No information is maintained at(a) national and (b) sub-national level on numbers in receipt of both attendance allowance and payments from the independent living fund.

  Pensions
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to make a statement in the light of the outcome of the Barber case on pension ages, in the European Court.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 21 May at column 10.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many nuclear test veterans have made claims for pensions; how many have been awarded; how many have been rejected; and how many are still under consideration.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Records show that 248 claims for war pension have been made by ex-service men, or the widows or dependants of ex-service men who participated in the United Kingdom nuclear weapons test programme. Most, but not all, of these were for disablement or death resulting from alleged exposure to ionising radiation. Fourteen claims are still under consideration. The war pensions scheme provides for pensions where there is reliable evidence which raises a reasonable doubt that a condition is caused or aggravated by service or that death was due to or substantially hastened by service. It is accepted that the evidence raises such a doubt in the case of participants who have contracted leukaemia (excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia) or multiple myeloma. Two war disablement pensions and eight war widows' pensions have been awarded as a result.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be(a) the gross and (b) the net cost of raising child benefit in a full financial year in line with the rise in tax thresholds in between 1989–90 to 1990–91 uprated according to the statutory formula.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The costs would be about £345 million gross and £260 million net.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on present policy towards compensation for repetitive strain injury; and what changes are being considered.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Two forms of upper limb disorder caused by repetitive movements are included in the list of prescribed diseases allowing entitlement to industrial injuries benefits:Cramp of the hand or forearm due to repetitive movements—in any occupation involving prolonged periods of handwriting, typing or other repetitive movements of the fingers, hand or arm.
  Traumatic inflammation of the tendons of the hand or forearm, or the associated tendon sheaths—in any occupation involving manual labour, or frequent or repeated movements of the hand or wrist.

  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, who advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the industrial injuries scheme, announced on 5 June a study to review all new evidence which has become available since 1986 on the occupational causation of upper limb disorders.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving family credit or income support in(a) Wales as a whole, (b) each county in Wales and (c) each district council area in Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 18 May at column 568. Income support information is only available by social security region, or for Wales as a whole. At November 1989, some 253,000 claimants in Wales were in receipt of income support.

  Source: Quarterly statistical inquiry November 1989.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Research and Development
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the procedures and criteria for deciding priorities when allocating funds for scientific and technological research and development in Europe.

  Mr. Jackson
  Funds from the science budget are not specifically allocated for the support of European scientific research. From the resources made available to them annually, however, research councils and other agencies expend substantial sums on collaborative research within Europe. Decisions on priorities will generally reflect the scientific judgments of those involved. In reaching decisions in individual cases account is likely to be taken of a range of factors including the added value likely to be achievable from particular collaborative arrangements; their complementarity to domestic research priorities; their scope for improving the quality of European science; the likelihood of technology transfer; the pursuit of research goals requiring study of trans-border issues; and the extent to which the costs and risks of large-scale investment may be shared.

  Retirement (Ill Health)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many ill health retirements took place in maintained further and higher education for each academic year from September 1979 to August 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  January

  Total number

  Percentage aged

  Under 30

  30 to 39

  40 to 49

  50 to 59

  60 and over

  1980

  77,941

  7·1

  30·6

  33·4

  24·7

  4·2

  1981

  77,465

  6·1

  30·9

  33·0

  25·4

  4·6

  1982

  77,378

  5·6

  31·4

  32·7

  25·7

  4·6

  1983

  79,036

  5·4

  31·6

  32·8

  25·6

  4·6

  1984

  79,852

  5·2

  31·1

  33·4

  25·7

  4·6

  1985

  80,408

  5·0

  30·4

  34·4

  25·6

  4·6

  1986

  80,288

  4·9

  30·2

  34·9

  25·7

  4·3

  1987

  80,776

  4·5

  28·5

  36·8

  25·9

  4·3

  1988

  82,167

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1989

  81,538

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1 Not yet available.

  Note: All figures include lecturers in establishments now funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  Building Programmes
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much public money has been spent in real terms on major building programmes in maintained further and higher education for each academic year from September 1979 to August 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information (by financial rather than academic year) is as follows:

  Capital expenditure on maintained further and higher education (1979–80 prices)

  £ million

  1979–80

  82·2

  1980–81

  108·2

  1981–82

  76·4

  1982–83

  88·7

  1983–84

  84·4

  1984–85

  87·4

  1985–86

  88·5

  1986–87

  94·1

  1987–88

  73·5

  1988–89

  76·8

  The figures refer to gross capital expenditure in England, and include expenditure from the urban programme.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The studies conducted during the financial years 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 were as follows:

  Teachers (Further Education)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time teachers aged(a) less than 30 years, (h) 30 to 39 years, (c) 40 to 49 years, (d) 50 to 59 years and (e) 60 years and above were employed in maintained further and higher education for each academic year from September 1979 to August 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers and age distribution of full-time teachers in establishments of further and higher education maintained by local education authorities in England and Wales are given in the table.

  1986–87

  Arthur Young-Financial Management

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells-Audit Management

  1987–88

  CCTA—Education Information Study

  Coopers and Lybrand—Financial Delegation to schools

  Peat Marwick McClintock—Review of Inspection reports

  Research Services—Undergraduate income and expenditure survey

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells—Financial Management advice and assistance to the UGC

  Spicer and Pegler—Review of accounting procedures at one of the grant aided bodies

  1988–89

  Ernst Whinney—Management of HMI travelling and subsistence

  Peat Marwick McClintock—Resource Management

  ITS Ltd—Training review

  Coopers Lybrand—Management framework

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells—Financial Management of UGC

  1989–90

  Peat Marwick McClintock—Financial management survey of SERC

  Peat Marwick McClintock—Student loans

  Price Waterhouse—Student loans

  PAS Limited—Parent awareness survey

  It is not possible to state the amount paid in respect of each consultancy without breach of commercial confidentiality. The total cost was £23,200 in 1986–87; £255,413 in 1987–88; £153,939 in 1988–89 and £332,502 in 1989–90. The results of these studies where appropriate have been implemented. Details of studies undertaken in previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he intends to implement the recommendation of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils that higher education institutes should receive an
  219
  extra £259 million for additional equipment to support current scientific research and an extra £200 million for equipment to initiate new scientific research;

  (2) what are his latest estimates of the cost of additional equipment necessary for higher education institutes to (a) support current levels of scientific research and (b) initiate new scientific research.

  Mr. Jackson
  The "Survey of Academic Research Equipment in the United Kingdom" commissioned by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and published in November 1989 identified the equipment needs of universities and polytechnics. The advice which the A BRC offered my right hon. Friend last year on the Government's expenditure plans for the science budget took into account these needs.

  The increases to the science budget announced on 15 November included substantial provision for expenditure on equipment in higher education institutions via the science budget, the UFC and the PCFC.

  The funding requirements for the science base, including equipment needs, will of course be reviewed again in this year's survey in the usual way.

  Governing Bodies
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to repeat the survey on the composition of governing bodies; and how many business men or women without connections with the education world are members of governing bodies.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The third in a series of surveys, currently being conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research, will provide further information about the composition of school governing bodies. The results will be available in the autumn. The second survey in the series, conducted last year, showed that over 40 per cent. of working governors, other than heads and elected teacher representatives, came from business or the professions.

  John Ball School
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina v. London Borough of Greenwich ex parte the governors of John Ball school.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from local authorities following the judgment in the case to which my hon. Friend refers. These have been carefully considered.

  Mr. Evenett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to

  Table A

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Local education authority

  Training of licensed teachers

  Expected number licensed teachers

  Implied average training costs1

  Barnet

  30,000

  10

  3,000

  Bexley

  37,100

  10

  3,710

  Bromley

  9,000

  10

  900

  Ealing

  48,400

  10

  4,840

  Enfield

  47,700

  10

  4,770

  Haringey

  72,000

  14

  5,142

  Harrow

  52,000

  9

  5,777

  220
  introduce legislation to amend the Education Act 1980 in the light of the judgment in Regina v. London Borough of Greenwich ex parte the governors of John Ball school.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is not at present contemplating a change in the law following the judgment in the case to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Licensed and Articled Teachers
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the local education authorities participating in(a) the licensed teacher schemes and (b) the articled teacher schemes, with the number of trainees in every case, and the estimated cost per place, together with an estimate of the cost of training, by postgraduate, of certificate of education and bachelor of education route.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Licensed teachers are appointed by local education authorities and schools to specific posts, and the nature and the cost of the training to be provided will depend on the needs of the individual teachers appointed.

  The training costs of licensed teachers are eligible for support under the local education authorities training grants scheme. Table A lists the local education authorities which are to receive support for licensed teacher training and associated costs in the financial year 1990–91. The amount of eligible expenditure to be supported, the number of licensed teachers expected to be supported and the average training costs implied by this for the financial year are also shown in each case. However, local education authorities and schools may appoint licensed teachers beyond these.

  Consortia of local education authorities and initial teacher training institutions were invited to submit bids to run articled teacher pilot schemes in June 1989. The number of places allocated to successful consortia is listed in table B, together with the participating local education authorities and the estimated costs per student.

  The annual cost of PGCE and BEd places varies considerably from institution to institution. For the 1991–92 academic year the guide price for initial teacher training places applied by the UFC is £3,500, which includes the tuition fee but excludes any research costs. Institutions in the PCFC sector have been advised that, as an upper reference point, the mean unit of funding in 1990–91 is £1,950 and that they should assume that they will receive through the tuition fee £2,500 for a band 2 student (which includes PGCE students and some BEd students) and £1,675 for a band 1 student. Both the UFC and the PCFC sector figures exclude provision for student maintenance.
  221

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Local education authority

  Training of licensed teachers

  Expected number licensed teachers

  Implied average training costs1

  Havering

  31,000

  10

  3,100

  Hillingdon

  42,700

  15

  2,846

  Hounslow

  14,600

  5

  2,920

  Kingston upon Thames

  26,000

  10

  2,600

  Merton

  30,000

  10

  3,000

  Newham

  91,000

  16

  5,687

  Redbridge

  17,500

  5

  3,500

  Richmond upon Thames

  10,000

  15

  666

  Sutton

  28,000

  6

  4,666

  Waltham Forest

  58,000

  11

  5,272

  Greenwich

  13,000

  20

  650

  Hackney

  37,000

  30

  1,233

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17,000

  12

  1,416

  Islington

  106,000

  140

  757

  Kensington and Chelsea

  30,000

  10

  3,000

  Tower Hamlets

  38,330

  10

  3,833

  Wandsworth

  31,500

  20

  1,575

  Westminster

  8,000

  6

  1,333

  Coventry

  31,800

  7

  4,542

  Dudley

  42,000

  10

  4,200

  Sandwell

  48,250

  10

  4,825

  Bolton

  3,000

  1

  3,000

  Stockport

  1,000

  1

  1,000

  Bradford

  20,500

  5

  4,100

  Bedfordshire

  35,000

  10

  3,500

  Berkshire

  30,000

  10

  3,000

  Buckinghamshire

  72,000

  14

  5,142

  Cambridgeshire

  27,360

  6

  4,560

  Derbyshire

  34,000

  12

  2,833

  Devon

  24,500

  6

  4,083

  Dorset

  20,000

  6

  3,333

  Essex

  162,000

  25

  6,480

  Gloucestershire

  30,330

  10

  3,033

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,000

  2

  3,000

  Hertfordshire

  93,000

  32

  2,906

  Kent

  120,000

  35

  3,428

  Lancashire

  30,000

  10

  3,000

  Lincolnshire

  40,600

  20

  2,030

  North Yorkshire

  24,000

  15

  1,600

  Northamptonshire

  138,000

  25

  5,520

  Nottinghamshire

  12,200

  4

  3,050

  Oxfordshire

  10,950

  10

  1,095

  Somerset

  28,400

  6

  4,733

  Staffordshire

  28,000

  10

  2,800

  Surrey

  50,000

  16

  3,125

  West Sussex

  10,000

  3

  3,333

  Wiltshire

  38,300

  10

  3,830

  1(a) ÷ (b).

  Bid area

  Participating LEAs

  Number of student places allocated

  Annual cost per student excluding bursary (£)

  Cambridge

  Cambridgeshire Bedfordshire Hertfordshire

  50

  4,000

  Hampshire

  Hampshire West Sussex Isle of Wight

  50

  3,181

  East London

  Havering Tower Hamlets

  34

  4,681

  Leeds

  Leeds

  50

  4,810

  Buckinghamshire

  Buckinghamshire

  16–20

  4,655

  Kent

  Kent

  50

  1,747

  Cheshire

  Tameside

  30–35

  3,223

  Devon

  Devon

  60

  4,053

  Humberside

  Humberside

  36

  3,810

  North East London

  Newham Tower Hamlets

  30

  3,607

  222

  Bid area

  Participating LEAs

  Number of student places allocated

  Annual cost per student excluding bursary (£)

  North London

  Brent Islington Camden Hackney Enfield

  50

  1,210

  South West London

  Wandsworth Kensington and Chelsea Hillingdon Westminster Croydon Ealing

  52

  607

  Warwickshire

  Warwickshire Coventry Solihull

  15

  5,876

  Central/ North London

  Camden Hackney Harrow Islington

  40

  5,000

  223

  Bid area

  Participating LEAs

  Number of student places allocated

  Annual cost per student excluding bursary (£)

  Manchester

  Oldham Rochdale Salford Wigan

  50

  4,983

  Bristol

  Gloucestershire Wiltshire

  30

  4,357

  Notes:

  1. Costs are incurred for two academic years.

  2. Figures exclude institutional funding from the UFC and PCFC which will be based on 0·5 of a full-time equivalent place each year.

  3. 65 per cent. of the costs will be met from the LEA Training Grants Scheme; the other 35 per cent. will come from LEAs.

  4. The cost of the bursary per student, over the two year training period is £13,000 in London and £11,000 elsewhere.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers in which local education authority areas have been declared redundant as a consequence of the introduction of local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available. Where there have been reports of possible teacher redundancies, it is by no means clear that these would be solely a consequence of the introduction of local management of schools rather than a reflection of the constant process of adjustment that has always been necessary as the circumstances of individual schools change over time.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what data are collected by his Department about the consequences of local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is collecting budget information for 1990–91 from statements prepared by each LEA under section 42 of the Education Reform Act. Information on actual expenditure in 1990–91 will also be collected from outturn statements, prepared under the same section. We are monitoring and reviewing all aspects of the effects of local management with the help of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.

  Higher Education Expenditure
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was(a) recurrent and (b) capital spending by the Government on (a) universities, (b) polytechnics and (c) colleges of further education for each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 = 100.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding reply 11 June 1990]: The information for universities covered by the University Grants Committee and, from April 1989, by the Universtities Funding Council, is as follows (real terms figures are derived using the GDP deflator):

  Financial year

  Recurrent

  Capital

  Cash £'000s

  Real terms

  Cash £'000s

  Real terms

  1978–79

  612,599

  —

  79,304

  —

  1979–80

  741,190

  634,622

  101,370

  86,795

  1980–81

  956,464

  691,997

  110,598

  80,017

  224

  Financial year

  Recurrent

  Capital

  Cash £'000s

  Real terms

  Cash £'000s

  Real terms

  1981–82

  982,335

  647,316

  116,308

  76,642

  1982–83

  1,193,333

  733,413

  118,926

  73,091

  1983–84

  1,240,179

  728,217

  117,616

  69,063

  1984–85

  1,272,416

  707,007

  119,195

  66,230

  1985–86

  1,302,752

  691,686

  132,688

  70,450

  1986–87

  1,341,817

  689,021

  145,465

  74,696

  1987–88

  1,490,175

  726,267

  144,106

  70,233

  1988–89

  1,608,497

  731,818

  157,457

  71,638

  1989–90

  1,711,604

  726,968

  179,247

  76,131

  It is not possible to disaggregate from other local education authority expenditure that element which represents recurrent or capital expenditure on colleges of further education or polytechnics which were or are funded by local authorities.

WALES

  Beef
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the need for direct governmental assistance towards additional promotion of the sale of beef; and what has been his Department's response.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This issue was discussed at a recent meeting between the Farmers Union of Wales and my Department.

  Promotion of the sale of beef is a matter for the Meat and Livestock Commission, whose promotional activities are supported by the industry itself.

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he sent to local authorities in Wales draft application forms for housing improvement grants under the new legislation which comes into force on 1 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Application forms for the new renovation grant regime are included in the Application for Grant (Prescribed Forms and Particulars) Regulations 1990, which will be laid before the House shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library and will be sent to all housing authorities.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received concerning the poll tax since its introduction in April; and how many of these have been(a) in support of and (b) opposed to the new system.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Between 1 April and 8 June 339 letters have been received from members of the public and 239 letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents. These have covered a wide range of issues concerning the community charge. Many have sought information or explanation about particular aspects of the new arrangements as they affect individuals. No meaningful analysis along the lines requested by the hon. Gentleman can be provided.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to advertise in the press in Wales
  225
  the method of transitional relief operational in Wales for poll tax payers, and to counteract the incorrect impression given by advertisements placed in English newspapers, relating to the different transitional relief system operational only in England.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No Government advertisements have conveyed an incorrect impression of the Welsh transitional relief scheme. In Wales transitional relief does not have to be claimed. The appropriate reductions have been made by the local authorities concerned.

  School Meals
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many and what percentage of children took school meals in 1989; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the number and percentage of free school meals provided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  In September 1988, the latest year for which information is available, the number and percentage of pupils provided with school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in Wales were as follows:

  Pupils

  Number of pupils provided with free school meals

  59,802

  as a percentage of all pupils on roll

  14·6

  Total number of pupils taking school meals

  213,341

  as a percentage of all pupils on roll

  52·0

  Local education authorities are empowered to provide at their discretion refreshment and facilities for the consumption of refreshments in the middle of the day for pupils in schools maintained by them. The Social Security Act 1986 requires that pupils whose parents are or who themselves are in receipt of income support should receive such provision free of charge.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average price of a school meal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  The average price of school meals in primary schools in September 1989 was 68p. It is not possible to give a figure for secondary schools as most operate a cash cafeteria system.

  Coed Mawr Site, Bangor
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether proceeds from the sale of the Coed Mawr offices site at Bangor are included in the former financial plans of Gwynedd health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Arthritis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of arthritis sufferers in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Rheumatologists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rheumatologists are employed by each of the health authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Grist
  The information which relates to consultants with a main specialty of rheumatology is given in the table:

  Numbers of consultants in post

  Health Authority

  Whole time equivalent

  Clwyd

  0·9

  East Dyfed

  0·1

  Gwent

  —

  Gwynedd

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  2·0

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  Powys

  —

  South Glamorgan

  2·5

  West Glamorgan

  2·0

  Wales

  17·5

  1 Provisional figures for September 1989.

  The level of staff and resources for rheumatology services in Wales is an operational matter for the district health authorities to determine.

  Job Creation, Fishguard
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what special measures he intends taking to create jobs in the Fishguard, Pembrokeshire area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There already exists a range of measures which are helping to reduce unemployment and create jobs in the Fishguard area. The fact that unemployment in the Fishguard travel-to-work area fell by 122—two percentage points—in the year to April 1990 is evidence that this policy is working.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bypasses in Wales are currently under construction; how many further ones are planned before the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  Seven are under construction and 25 planned schemes are included in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s". Bypass schemes identified as a result of route studies are likely to be added to the forward programme.

  Beach Pollution
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities in Wales have the resources to maintain up-to-date information on pollution levels on beaches in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Provision is made for local government's environmental protection responsibilities in the annual local authority revenue settlements and is thus reflected in standard spending assessments for revenue support grant purposes.
  227
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to arrange the display of information on beaches in Wales to show accurately the level of pollution recorded for such beaches.

  Mr. Grist
  Although it is for local authorities to determine whether and how to display information on bathing waters, we shall be encouraging them to make the information more readily accessible.

  Ophthalmic Clinics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many attendances at ophthalmic clinics were recorded in the last quarter of 1989 in each district health authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The total ophthalmology out-patient attendances recorded in NHS hospitals is given in the table:

  Total attendances during quarter ended December 1989

  Health authority

  Number

  Clwyd

  7,565

  East Dyfed

  5,072

  Gwent

  6,111

  Gwynedd

  4,564

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,483

  Pembrokeshire

  1,685

  Powys

  690

  South Glamorgan

  7,710

  West Glamorgan

  6,556

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children aged under 16 years received free eye tests in Wales(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  The data requested were not collected centrally prior to 1 April 1989, since when they have been collected on a six-monthly basis.

  The available information is given in the table.

  Estimated1 number of sight tests paid for by family practitioner committees

  Six months ending:

  Children aged under 16

  30 September 1989

  36,680

  31 March 1990

  41,950

  1 Estimates based upon a 2 per cent. sample of all such sight tests.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his parliamentary answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 454, regarding teacher wastage, if he will provide, in a form similar to table 1, information on wastage among teachers of Welsh.

  Mr. Roberts
  Information on teacher wastage by subject taught is not available.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list those managing organisations of youth training schemes in Wales which submitted proposals for the future development of youth training in response to the request last year by the Training Agency in Wales.
  228
  Mr. Roberts
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]:The following organisations submitted proposals to the Training Agency for schemes under the new youth training arrangements.

  South Glamorgan

  Glamorgan Counties GTA

  Focal Development

  Post Office Counters

  Resource UK

  Atlantic College

  Royal Mail Letters

  Neway

  Vale of Glamorgan Training Agency

  TDS

  Link (Wales) Ltd.

  Howells

  Cardiff ITEC

  AMS

  Albertos

  Cardiff Inner City Initiative

  JHP Training

  Metcon

  HCTB

  South Glamorgan Area Health Authority

  Cardiff City Council

  South Glamorgan County Council

  Beacon Training

  Bros. Constantinou

  CITS

  ACE

  Cardiff Group Training Consort

  West Wales

  Neath Borough CTA

  Neath College

  Link Wales

  Kenyons Ltd.

  Ford Motor Company

  Link Services

  Neath ITEC

  Work Skills Training

  Port Talbot YOC

  British Steel Corporation

  West Glamorgan CC

  Indent

  Swansea City Council

  STACS

  Swansea ITEC

  BEVIS

  ACO

  David Evans

  Post Office

  Neath Borough CTA (Initial Training)

  Swansea City Council (Initial Training)

  Cardiff GTA (Initial Training)

  Glamorgan Counties GTA

  WDA

  Llynfi Training Workshop

  DVLA

  Llanelli TA

  British Steel (Tinplate)

  Acclaim

  East Dyfed ITEC

  St Teilo

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  European Profiles Ltd.

  Focal

  HCTB

  Preseli District Council

  Nayland Training Initiative

  Dyfed County Council

  Carmarthenshire and Wales Game Farm

  Mainport

  West Dyfed ITEC

  LTA (Initial Training)

  Nacro (Aberystwyth) Initial Training

  Community Industry

  Nayland Training Initiative (Initial Training)

  229

  Luton and Dunstable

  Mid Wales Development

  Post Office Counters

  Welsh Water Authority

  Resource UK Ltd.

  Post Office Counters (N Wales)

  BP Chemicals

  Gwent

  Beacon Training

  ICI Fibres

  Lucas Girling

  Michael Carter

  Focal Development

  Heads of Valleys GTA

  Islwyn BC

  Victoria Training

  Agency for Caring Environments

  Lloyds British

  Borough of Torfaen

  Alfred Teves

  British Alcan

  HCTB

  Pill Enterprise Project

  CITS

  CITS Youth in Business

  CITS Initial Training

  Crosskeys College of FE

  Gwent-Train

  Newport College of FE

  USK College of Agriculture

  JHP Training

  Michael J. Smith Associates

  BSC Panteg

  Glamorgan Counties Training Services

  Training Development Services

  AMS

  Royal Mail Letters

  Link Organisation

  RO Glascoed

  Saunders Valve

  South Wales Switchgear

  Resource U.K.

  Arrow Training

  BSC Orb

  BSC Llanwern

  BSC Tinplate

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  Blaenau Gwent ITEC

  Monmouth BC

  Newport Training Services

  Gwent Training Ltd.

  Newport and District GTA

  Ebbw Vale College of FE

  Gwent CC Planning Department

  Pontypool College of FE

  Post Office Counters

  Crosskeys College of FE Initial Training

  Alberto Education Centre

  Gwent Skillcentre

  North West Wales

  Penyffridd

  Ynys Mon Borough Council

  Gwynedd Health Authority

  Arfon Borough Council

  Community Industry

  TEC area

  Engineering

  Motor vehicle trades

  Science

  Filled places YTS at 30 March 1990

  YT contract

  Filled places YTS at 30 March 1990

  YT contract

  Filled places YTS at 30 March 1990

  YT contract

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,107

  1,262

  303

  237

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  165

  222

  221

  293

  23

  23

  West Wales

  591

  555

  464

  471

  29

  11

  Powys

  60

  59

  62

  72

  3

  21

  North East Wales

  459

  404

  120

  178

  10

  76

  North West Wales

  192

  116

  159

  179

  11

  55

  Gwent

  376

  452

  215

  314

  2

  132

  230

  Llandrillo CFE

  Vale of Clwyd ITEC

  University College of North Wales

  North Wales Training Agency

  Post Office

  Gwynedd CC Agriculture

  Gwynedd CC Multi Route including ITEC

  Hotpoint

  Anglesey Training

  Penrhyn Quarry

  Arfon/Dwyfor

  Mid Wales Training

  Skills Development Agency

  NECTA

  Mid and North Wales Training Group

  Coleg Pencraig

  Northop College of Horticulture

  Clwyd Training

  North East Wales

  British Steel Corporation

  British Aerospace PLC

  Skills Development Agency

  C and M Training (UK) Ltd.

  NECTA

  Air Products Ltd.

  Llysfast College

  Clwyd Training

  Delyn Business Partnership

  Northop College of Horticulture

  Wrexham Training

  NEWI

  Clwyd County Council

  Wrexham ITEC

  Deeside ITEC (now merged with NEWI)

  Iceland frozen foods (contract now with NTP unit Moorfoot)

  BICC

  Commercial Consultants Europe Ltd.

  Mid and North Wales Training Group

  Tamic Institute

  Powys

  Laura Ashley

  Coleg Powys

  Mid and North Wales Training Group

  Powys Training

  Mid Wales Training

  Ministry of Defence

  Welsh Water Authority

  WSJ Training Ltd.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has of the number of young people, under the youth training scheme, pursuing training in(a) engineering, (b) advanced motor vehicle maintenance and (c) science in 1989; and how many young people are expected to pursue such courses in the year following the issuing of new contracts for managing organisations in Wales.

  Mr. Roberts
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: The Training Agency's estimates are set out in the following table:
  231
  Notes:

  1. Figure for Mid, South Glamorgan and West Wales are based on Training Occupational Classifications (TOCs) throughout.

  2. Figures for Gwent, Powys, NE Wales and NW Wales based on TOCs for occupancy at 31 March 1990 and Standard Occupational Classifications (SOCs) for YT contracted places.

  3. Specific information on Advance Motor Vehicle Maintenance is not held, but Training Agency Area Offices confirm that demand for training at this level can be met through the network of providers contracted for Youth Training.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has of(a) the expenditure on youth training in (i) 1988–89, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92 and (v) 1992–93, (b) the number of school leavers aged 16 and 17 years entering the market, (c) the numbers joining YTS or YT and (d) the gross public cost in pounds per trainee week, in each of those years.

  Mr. Roberts
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: Expenditure on youth training in Wales for 1988–89 and 1989–90 in respect of those places contracted by YTS providers with local area offices was £52·610 million and £50·746 million respectively. Additionally, it is estimated that a further £10 million of expenditure per year is spent on youth training in Wales through the Training Agency's national providers unit which contracts with large companies with outlets throughout the United Kingdom. For 1990–91 planned expenditure in respect of those places contracted by YT providers with local area offices is £45·750 million. Figures are not available for future years.

  The number of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school in Wales in the school years 1988–89 and 1989–90 was 30,200 and 29,000 respectively. For future school years, the estimate is 28,000 in 1990–91, 26,900 in 1991–92 and 26,500 in 1992–93. These figures refer to all school leavers and not just those entering the labour market, for whom separate figures are not available.

  The numbers joining YTS in the 1988–89 and 1989–90 financial years was 18,758 and 17,781 respectively. For 1990–91, the provisional estimate for those entering youth training is 17,300. No figures are available for future financial years.

  Figures on the gross public cost in pounds per trainee week are not available for Wales. Figures for Great Britain for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90 were £49 and £50 respectively. For future years the Great Britain estimate is £42 for 1990–91, £37 for 1991–92 and £33 for 1992–93.

HEALTH

  Blood Products
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the first known sero-conversion to HIV took place in a person with haemophilia as a result of using English factor concentrates.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally. The routine reporting of HIV infection in haemophiliacs to the public health laboratory service communicable diseases surveillance centre does not cover the country of origin of factor concentrate.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of factor VIII concentrates were imported into the United Kingdom from United States-based pharmaceutical companies each year between 1979 and 1985 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will list the pharmaceutical companies involved, along with their share of the market.
  232
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all known forms of disease and infection which his medical and scientific advisers consider may have some connection with toxic waste incineration, and in particular relating to all forms of dioxins which may be created by the incineration process.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Emissions of toxic compounds, including dioxins, from hazardous waste incinerators, are restricted to levels well below that which might be expected to cause harmful effects. Studies conducted in the United Kingdom have found no evidence of an unusual incidence of disease around such incinerators, nor is there evidence that human disease or infection has resulted from dioxins arising from the process of toxic waste incineration.

  The independent expert Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products, and the Environment (COT) reviewed the extensive toxicity data on dioxins, and this review was published in "Dioxins in the Environment", (pollution paper No. 27 1989), a copy of which is available in the Library. The report describes a range of effects, such as chloracne, following massive accidental dioxins exposures, as well as those described in animal experiments using high exposures over a long period of time.

  The COT noted that the available data on the toxic effects of dioxins in human health are, on the whole, reassuring. However, the COT recommended action to identify sources and control emissions of dioxins, in order to reduce human exposure. The Government have therefore extended rigorous controls, on combustion conditions and emissions, to all incinerators, which should reduce dioxin emissions from such sources by up to 90 per cent.

  Distinction Awards
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 23 April,Official Report, column 28, what is the salary of the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards; and if he will give a breakdown of the committee members' expenses; what are the number of consultants who hold awards,, and the number of consultant obstetricians or paediatricians who have held awards in the North West Durham health authority since the advent of medical and management audit; and how often the chairman and vice-chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards have met those consultants who do not hold awards.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I regret that the figure given for committee members' expenses was incorrect in my reply to the hon. Member on 23 April at column 28. The correct figure for the year ended 31 March 1989 is £15,552. This is broken down as follows:

  233

  £

  Overnight subsistence, travel, miscellaneous expenses for the visits by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to the 15 Regional Committees

  4,102

  Chairman's secretarial expenses

  2,976

  Travelling expenses of members of the Advisory Committee

  164

  Subsistence and travel of members of the 15 Regional C awards and higher awards Committees, and of the Dental Sub-Committee

  8,310

  The salary of the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards was £11,990 in 1988–89. Following a review of the responsibilities of the post, the salary was increased to £21,450 in 1989–90.

  In England and Wales 5,698 consultants currently hold a distinction award. As previously stated, statistics on awards by district health authority are not maintained centrally.

  About 11,000 consultants do not hold an award. It would not be practicable for the chairman and vice-chairman to meet non-award holders collectively or individually. However, it is open to any consultant to submit a case for an award to the chairman or relevant regional committee.

  Clinical Standards Advisory Group
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which quarters he will draw his appointments for members of the clinical standards advisory group.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Membership of the group will be from nominations made by medical, midwifery and nursing royal colleges.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the intended role of the clinical standards advisory group; and what is his Department's definition of the term clinical in this instance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is described in the Government's amendment No. 198 to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill debated in another place on Tuesday 12 June at columns 245–46.

  Medical Services, North-East Thames
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the North East Thames regional medical advisory committee about reductions in medical services caused by financial pressures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that North East Thames regional health authority is working with the regional medical advisory committee to consider the current provision of medical services across the region.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate the number of(a) twin, (b) triplet, (c) quadruplet and (d) quintuplet pregnancies occurring through (i) IVF, (ii) GIFT and (iii) other forms of assisted reproduction during 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figures requested are not available for 1989. Data relating to multiple pregnancies 234
  following IVF treatment and GIFT for earlier years are given in the annual reports of the Interim Licensing Authority (copies of which are available in the Library) which was set up jointly by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

  Serious Illness
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to investigate ways in which the families of individuals who are seriously ill can be given better financial security.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Life-threatening illnesses vary greatly in the speed with which they need to be treated in order to avert the threat. The National Health Service is founded on the principle that help should be given most rapidly to those patients whose condition requires the earliest clinical intervention. That will always be its objective.

  Population Density
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current population density in thousands per square mile for each of the English district health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available population estimates for district health authorities, relating to mid-1988, have been published in OPCS monitor PPI 89/1 (revised), a copy of which is available in the Library. Information about the area of each authority is not kept centrally.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has had from the North Regional Association for the Blind; what reply he is sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received a letter from the association suggesting that ophthalmologists may no longer be eligible for a fee for examining blind and partially sighted people for the purposes of registration with the local authority. This suggestion is wholly unfounded. There has been no change in the terms and conditions for payment of this fee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will respond to the association shortly.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations the Minister of State has received from Crossroads Care; what replies he is sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of letters about the future role of Crossroads care schemes in the light of community care proposals. We have a high regard for the work of the organisation, whose central administrative costs we fund at the level of £80,000 a year. We anticipate that Crossroads will continue to make an important contribution in the years ahead.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appreciation certificates were issued by South West Thames regional health authority in respect of the ambulance dispute; to whom were they issued; and how much they cost.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the South West Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member way wish to contact the chairman, Baroness Cumberlege, for the information he requires.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to improve social service workers' knowledge of social work law.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work receives funding from the Department for a programme of improvements in social work training. This currently includes a project aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching and learning of relevant law. This includes the definition and assessment of legal competence in a social work practitioner, and the elaboration of the CCETSW's requirements in relation to the law for all social work courses, particularly the new diploma in social work programmes. In addition the CCETSW's routine approval and monitoring of qualifying courses pays particular attention to the teaching of law.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking in respect of its Leukaemia Research Fund's report entitled "Leukaemia and Lymphoma: an Atlas of Distribution in parts of England and Wales", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received from the independent Leukaemia Research Fund its report entitled "Leukaemia and Lymphoma: an Atlas of Distribution in parts of England and Wales", and we have given copies to members of the expert independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment for information. COMARE will no doubt wish to take account of this

  Age distribution of reported HIV infections Cumulative to 31 March 1900

  Age group is as at when first tested positive

  Regional health authority

  Age group

  0–14

  15–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45+

  Not Known

  Northern

  12

  42

  113

  43

  22

  101

  Yorkshire

  17

  78

  137

  83

  28

  13

  Trent

  1—

  91

  150

  65

  37

  10

  East Anglia

  1—

  25

  66

  37

  30

  24

  North West Thames

  29

  504

  1,378

  872

  358

  932

  North East Thames

  32

  329

  795

  485

  238

  384

  South East Thames

  37

  263

  547

  276

  142

  169

  South West Thames

  11

  55

  130

  67

  53

  21

  Wessex

  1—

  63

  96

  53

  36

  36

  Oxford

  1—

  79

  136

  55

  32

  56

  South Western

  1—

  67

  108

  52

  30

  12

  West Midlands

  33

  93

  100

  79

  40

  69

  Mersey

  17

  29

  56

  36

  17

  22

  North Western

  31

  165

  314

  155

  70

  12

  Channel Islands

  1—

  1—

  10

  1—

  1—

  1—

  236
  database, together with other relevant epidemiological studies, in pursuing the programme of work outlined by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 10 January at columns 662–63.

  Milk
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the present retail market share of various infant milk formulations; and if he will distinguish separately those using products containing soya, giving their aluminium content.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Soya-based infant formulae have been analysed for aluminium content by my Department. The content was in the range of 0·64–1·34 mg/litre, with a mean of 0·98 mg/litre. These results, which have been published in the scientific literature, are similar to those reported by other research workers. It is not our policy to disclose information by brand name. The Department of Health's independent Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has considered this Department's results and has advised that no action is needed to reduce aluminium from infant formulae.

  HIV
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report for each health authority in England, the number of persons infected with HIV; and if he will separately distinguish these numbers by age.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: The number of reports of cases of HIV infection to 31 March 1990 is 11,638. The following table shows the totals reported by age and health authority to the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable diseases surveillance centre. In line with the procedure followed in reports under the AIDS (Control) Act, and to safeguard confidentiality, actual figures in the range of one to nine diagnosed in individual regional health authorities are not published. These are indicated by1—.
  237

  Regional health authority

  Age group

  0–14

  15–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45 +

  Not Known

  Total (England)

  11,638

  1 To safeguard confidentiality, actual figures in the range of one to nine diagnosed in individual regional health authorities are not published.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown by regional health authority area of the incidence of confirmed cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease for each of the last 30 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: Accurate information on numbers of cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is not at present available. The study to be conducted by Dr. R. G. Will, with support from the Department of Health, will attempt to gather together this information from the recent past, as well as making arrangements to collect it in future.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many prayers relating to statutory instruments which have been tabled during the current Session have not so far been debated either on the Floor of the House or in Committee and how many of these undebated prayers have been the subject of representations seeking that they should be debated, including representations by letter and by means of a business question.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Up to and including Tuesday 5 June 1990, 127 prayers relating to statutory instruments had been tabled this Session. (This total does not include motions to similar effect relating to S.I.s and other laid papers, eg motions for disapproval, withdrawal, revocation or that drafts be not made in the form submitted.) Fourteen instruments with prayers against them have been debated on the Floor of the House, and 11 have been debated in Standing Committee. Two revocation motions relating to previously prayed against instruments have been taken on the Floor of the House, one such instrument has been debated in Standing Committee and one stands referred to a Committee. (In addition, one instrument stands referred to a Standing Committee under a revocation motion and a business motion, although it had not previously been prayed against.)

  It is not possible separately to identify how many undebated prayers have been the subject of representations without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Vote Bundle
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what saving he estimates would be made to public funds if written and oral questions were not reprinted in the Vote bundle after appearing for the first time.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  It is estimated that savings to public funds of between £1 million and £2 million could arise. It is not possible to be more precise, since a radical change of this nature would require a fundamental review of how the relatively fixed costs of HMSO's parliamentary press are recovered in the pricing of various documents produced for the House.

ENERGY

  Spent Magnox Fuel
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make a statement on the safety assessment of the storage of Magnox spent fuel in ponds at Sellafield;

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the safety and appropriateness of storage in ponds of spent Magnox fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The safe storage of spent Magnox fuel, at nuclear licensed sites, is a matter for the site operators who must satisfy the licensing requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  The NII carries out regular inspections of the storage facilities. Arrangements to ensure their safety include the provision of safety assessment cases by the operator for review by the NII.

  With regard to Sellafield, the NII reviewed and was satisfied with the safety assessment case prepared by British Nuclear Fuels plc for the Magnox storage facilities in the new fuel handling plant (B311) before it became operational in 1988. The most recent safety case for the older storage pond (B30) was received by the NII at the end of 1989 and is currently being assessed.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what publications, and in what numbers, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has produced for educational distribution on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in preparation for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty fourth review conference in August and September of the current year.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am not aware of any such publications.

  Nuclear Materials
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has agreed the criteria adopted by the safeguards authorities of the International Atomic Energy Agency to define significant quantities of nuclear materials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The definition of a significant quantity of a particular nuclear material is given in paragraph 107 of the IAEA safeguards glossary 1987 edition [Ref. IAEA/SG/INF/1 (Rev.1)], a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This definition is accepted by the member states of the IAEA, including the United Kingdom.

  Radioactive Waste Storage (Sellafield)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what countries currently have contracts with. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for the storage of radioactive waste at Sellafield.
  239
  Mr. Baldry
  British Nuclear Fuels plc does not have contracts purely to store radioactive waste. BNFL has contracts to reprocess spent fuel from overseas utilities in Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Since 1976, BNFL's overseas reprocessing contracts have contained options for the return of wastes arising. The Government intend that such options should be exercised and that wastes should be returned.

  Rural Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what grant or other aid is available for rural householders or farmers seeking to have a main electricity supply installed.

  Mr. Baldry
  I do not believe that arrangements for rural supplies require financial assistance by the Government.

  Under the new arrangements for post privatisation those requesting a supply do have the right of appeal to the director general if they feel that connection costs quoted by a supply company are unreasonable.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the isotopic composition of the Central Electricity Generating Board/South of Scotland Electricity Board origin plutonium sold, or currently leased, by Nuclear Electric or Scottish Nuclear to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for fast reactor research and development since 1969.

  Mr. Baldry
  The plutonium supplied to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority by the utilities for the fast reactor research and development programme is mostly plutonium 239 in a variety of concentrations up to 80 per cent.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 409, if he will give the appropriate figures for the savings in (a) gas and (b) solid fuels (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as percentages of total consumption if the same range of insulation measures were applied.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  If all cost-effective insulation measures (as listed in my answer to the hon. Member on 12 June) were applied to the United Kingdom housing stock, a saving of 272·1 PJ of gas and 64·8 PJ of solid fuel might be achieved. This represents approximately 14 per cent. of the gas and a similar proportion of the solid fuel consumed under boilers, kilns and furnaces and in other heating appliances in the United Kingdom.

  As indicated in my response of 5 June, householders are likely to opt, at least in part, for greater warmth rather than simply saving energy.

  Offshore Supplies Office
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will clarify the role of the offshore supplies office post-1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  After 1992, the Offshore Supplies Office will be responsible for ensuring fair opportunity for 240
  the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry in the home, European and overseas markets. It will continue to support the development of new technology on the United Kingdom continental shelf and promote United Kingdom exports to international oil and gasfield markets.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific actions have been taken by the United Kingdom in pursuit of its obligations under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  We and our NATO allies fully support negotiations aimed at balanced and verifiable arms control agreements, which aim to enhance security at lower levels of forces. We are currently involved in negotiations aimed at reducing conventional forces in Europe, and welcome the prospect of a START agreement between the United States and Soviet Union.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action Her Majesty's Government have taken since 1985 to reduce their stocks of nuclear weapons in accordance with the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the United States and Soviet Union possess between them the majority of nuclear weapons, prime negotiating responsibility falls to them. We fully support their efforts to secure a START agreement and welcome the progress made at the recent Washington summit.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties at less than 250 ft have been authorised over the United Kingdom in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Neubert
  In 1989 the number of movements authorised for flying below 250 ft within tactical training areas was as follows:

  Tactical training area

  Operational low flying movements

  Number of days on which operational low flying was authorised

  Northern Scotland

  817

  129

  Central Wales

  89

  105

  Borders

  1,788

  157

  Figures for sorties that have been flown below 250 ft are not available, but figures for movements for previous years have been given in the replies given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 30 October 1987 at column 487 and on 20 January 1988 at columns 764–65, and in the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 25 May 1989 at columns 732–33.
  241
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum permitted number of aircraft in a formation during low-flying training at less than 250 ft in each of the three tactical training areas.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of aircraft in a tactical formation at low level is determined by aircraft role and the type of exercise being carried out. However, formations do not normally consist of more than eight aircraft.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the authorised low-flying movements below 250 ft over the United Kingdom in each of the years from 1985 to 1989 consisted of continuation training sorties to maintain aircrew currency in flying at less than 250 ft, as opposed to work-up training for specific Flag exercises in north America.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret the information requested is not readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the forthcoming survey of noise levels from low-flying military aircraft to be conducted; and at what location the survey will be held.

  Mr. Neubert
  A trial is currently being conducted at the Royal Aerospace Establishment West Freugh range to obtain further information on noise levels generated by military aircraft at low level and, weather permitting, will be completed during this month. Following evaluation of the data, the results of the study are expected to be available early next year.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the lateral radius, expressed in nautical miles, of the avoidance areas around noise-sensitive sites in tactical training areas.

  Mr. Neubert
  Avoidance criteria adopted in any case will depend on the site concerned.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purposes RAF C-130 Hercules aircraft undertake low flying; and under what circumstances they receive clearance to fly between 100 and 250 feet.

  Mr. Neubert
  The tactical transport role of the RAF C-130 Hercules aircraft requires it to be capable of operating in a potentially hostile environment at low level. Aircraft may be cleared to fly at under 250 ft in the United Kingdom to undertake training in the three tactical training areas or to carry out free-drop training on designated drop zones in military danger areas.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights in the United Kingdom low-flying system were undertaken during the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 by(a) RAF C-130 Hercules, (b) USAF C-130 Hercules, (c) USAF C-141 Starlifter and (d) USAF C-5 Galaxy; and how many of these flights for each of those years were in areas 14, 14T, 14C, 16 and 20T of the low-flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is not readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Air Force Exercises
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what Royal Air Force participation is planned in exercises (1) Green Flag 90–4 and (2) Red Flag 90–5; how many and what types of RAF aircraft will take part; and how many work-up training sorties will be conducted in the United Kingdom in preparation for these exercises;

  (2) what joint work-up training between French air force and Royal Air Force Jaguar units took place in Britain prior to the French participation in exercise Red Flag 90–3.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the planned dates and locations of the main United Kingdom air activity, for exercises(a) Central Enterprise, (b) Mallet Blow, (c) OSEX, (d) Salty Hammer and (e) Elder Joust, during 1990.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is as follows:

  Exercise

  Dates

  Locations

  (a) Central Enterprise

  18–22 June 1990

  No significant activity in the United Kingdom

  (b) Mallet Blow

  26–30 March and 30 July—3 August 1990.

  North England and Borders

  (c) OSEX

  9–13 July 1990

  Mid and North Wales, North Lancashire and South Cumbria

  (d) Salty Hammer

  22 May 1990

  North England and South Scotland

  (e) Elder Joust

  2–3 October 1990

  East Scotland and North and East England

  There are some minor variations against the planned dates given to the hon. Member on 3 April (columns 595–98.)

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made to the United States authorities(a) to relax the minimum height restrictions for sorties in the first two days of Red/Green Flag exercises in respect of Royal Air Force aircrew already qualified to fly at 100 ft and (b) to relax the regulation prohibiting offensive or defensive manoeuvring below 300 ft for Royal Air Force aircraft participating in Red or Green Flag exercises.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  RAF Combat Training
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future policy on realistic combat training for Royal Air Force strike/attack units following the recent NATO decision to abandon plans for a tactical fighter training centre.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the decision by NATO Ministers not to pursue further the sites under consideration for a NATO tactical fighter centre, the EURO/NATO training group has been invited to consider alternative ways of meeting NATO training requirements in this area. Future United Kingdom training requirements will naturally need to take account of the outcome of our current examination of options for change.

  Controlled Airspace (Unauthorised Penetrations)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations concerning the requirements for aircrew to report incidences of unauthorised penetration of regulated or controlled airspace in the event of having to climb out of the United Kingdom low flying system unexpectedly; and how many such unauthorised penetrations were reported in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Neubert
  Aircrew are instructed to report any such unauthorised penetrations of regulated or controlled airspace, but very few occur and separate statistics for such incidents are not maintained.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilots are currently qualified to fly overland at less than 250 ft; and what consideration has been given to requesting Sea Harrier participation in flag exercises in north America.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our policy to disclose the operational capabilities of Royal Navy pilots. I can say however that the Royal Navy does not participate in the flag exercises held in north America, as these are designed to train pilots in roles not normally assumed by the Royal Navy.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction of the Aldermaston A90 building.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on 18 May 1990, at column 578.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there has ever been a joint United Kingdom-United States nuclear warhead test in (i) Nevada, (ii) the Pacific islands or (iii) Australia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All United Kingdom nuclear tests in Nevada have been joint United Kingdom-United States activities; the United Kingdom permitted the United States to use its Pacific (Christmas Island) test site for the Operation Dominic series of tests in 1962; all tests in Australia were United Kingdom national tests.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information in support of the United Kingdom nuclear weapons and warhead design and development has been made available by the United States under the 1958–59 as amended mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters; and for what period this agreement will remain in force without requiring amendment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of successive British Governments not to disclose information exchanged under the terms of the 1958 United Kingdom/United States defence agreement. The agreement will remain extant until 31 December 1994, when article III is due for renewal.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the financial savings made if the planned number of warheads for the Trident D5 programme were reduced by (i) 50 per cent. and (ii) 75 per cent.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal details of this nature, for security reasons.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) of 15 May,Official Report, column 729, what matters with regard to nuclear non-proliferation were discussed at the NATO nuclear planning group in Kananaskis, Canada on 9–10 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The alliance's long-held position with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons remains unchanged. However, given the profound political changes in the countries of central and eastern Europe over recent months, the meeting of the NATO nuclear planning group, which took place in Canada on 9 to 10 May, concentrated its discussions on the implications of these developments for the alliance's nuclear policy. A copy of the final communiqué issued on completion of the NPG meeting is available in the Library.

  Management Strategy
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made towards introducing its new management strategy.

  Mr. Neubert
  Good progress has been made in preparing for the introduction of the new management strategy in April 1991.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of any research commissioned or financed by him on square mesh panels as a means of conservation.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the reply given today to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), which sets out the various research work being carried out on square mesh panels throughout the UK, including the major contribution by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen.

  Mental Health Programmes
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make more funds available to the Training Agency for people with mental health problems.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. The Training Agency has sufficient resources to meet the demand for training places for young people and unemployed people with special needs including those with mental health problems.

  HIV
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the first known sero-conversion to HIV took place in a person with haemophilia as a result of using Scottish factor concentrates.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce maximum hourly rates of remuneration for work carried out by trustees in terms of section 53(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  An evaluation of the Scottish bankruptcy system is currently taking place and this will cover remuneration.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of the progress of the programme of action required by the European Community water directive, to bring Scotland's water supply up to the European Community standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All Scottish water authorities have now given undertakings, which my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted, to carry out improvement programmes to meet the standards set in the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990. The regulations incorporate the quality requirements of the European Community drinking water directive.

  The programmes mainly concern improvements to meet the standards for aluminium and for iron derived from unlined cast-iron pipes. Improvements in respect of aluminium are mostly due for completion by 1996, while
  246
  those in respect of iron will be completed over a longer period. Improvements to disinfection will also be made, especially to rural supplies, to ensure that microbiological standards are met at all times. Much of this work will be completed within the next two years.

  Programmes for meeting the European Community standard for lead should be complete by the end of this year except in two small supplies and three where major improvement works are in progress.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the Government's estimates of toxic waste imports to Scotland in each of the next five years;

  (2) if he will list the quantity of imported waste destined for Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Returns by district and islands councils indicate that the total amounts of waste imported into Scotland in 1987 and 1988 were as follows:

  Year

  Amount (tonnes)

  1987

  15

  1988

  453

  Information is not available for earlier years; returns for 1989 are not yet complete.

  Centrally, there are no estimates for the import of any wastes in future years.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is currently taking to monitor and investigate the incidence of illness arid death among humans and animals in areas where there are incinerators and landfill sites; and if he will make a statement on safeguards to the general public in such areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 district or islands councils as waste disposal authorities have powers to reject any application for the use of land, plant or equipment for the disposal of controlled waste which the council believes will cause a danger to public health. Health boards and environmental health departments are responsible for investigating particular incidents.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to strengthen current legislation to protect public health and the environment in the specific area of landfill sites and incineration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes. The Environmental Protection Bill will tighten controls both on air pollution, from incinerators and other sources, and on waste disposal to landfill sites.

  Lead Contamination
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his Department has spent on publicising the effects of lead in water in Scotland annually between 1979 and 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1983, £76,000 was spent on a publicity campaign in Scotland to inform the public about
  247
  the hazards of lead in the environment, including the effects of lead in water. A leaflet was sent to all households in Scotland and newspaper and radio advertisements were placed to publicise the distribution of the leaflet. There is now an adequate degree of public awareness of these hazards.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been allocated by his Department for the provision of lead replacement grants by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Capital allocations to local authorities in 1990–91 on the non-housing revenue account block total £124·635 million, of which £22·250 million is earmarked to clear the backlog of pre-1984 repairs grant applications in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Within these allocations resources are not earmarked centrally for particular programmes such as lead replacement. It is the responsibility of each local authority in the light of local circumstances to decide on the priority which should be attached to particular programmes such as lead replacement within the block allocation made available.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of Scottish Office spending plans in the area of water and sewerage over the next three years; how much of this allocation will be spent on dealing with the problem of lead in water; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For 1990–91, capital expenditure provision for authorities' water and sewerage

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Board

  Gross allocation £ million

  Distance from parity Per cent.

  Gross allocation £ million

  Distance from parity Per cent.

  Gross allocation £ million

  Distance from parity Per cent.

  Gross allocation £ million

  Distance from parity Per cent.

  Gross allocation £ million

  Distance from parity Per cent.

  Greater Glasgow

  360·607

  + 4·78

  383·516

  + 4·16

  411·541

  + 404

  457·513

  + 3·95

  484·025

  + 4·2

  Highland

  51·044

  -2·13

  55·520

  -1·18

  59·945

  -0·70

  66·684

  -1·27

  73·532

  -1·35

  Tayside

  126·932

  + 7·17

  135·633

  +4·44

  146·535

  + 2·27

  162·924

  + 2·30

  174·143

  + 0·68

  Forth Valley

  63·788

  -2·74

  68·391

  -3·32

  74·820

  -1·70

  82·441

  -1·38

  90·525

  -1·26

  Borders

  20·211

  -6·71

  21·903

  -4·85

  24·648

  -3·90

  27·421

  -3·32

  30·521

  -2·95

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35·535

  -3·05

  37·547

  -1·46

  40·898

  -2·07

  45·258

  -1·62

  50·229

  -1·61

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many budget-holding practice groups he envisages being in operation by April 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are conducting discussions with the practices that have expressed an interest in the general practitioner funding scheme with a view to determining which of them are suitable for undertaking the necessary preparatory work. It is not possible to anticipate how many fund holders will be in place for April 1991.

  Divorce
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications were made for legal aid in connection with actions for divorce in the latest year for which figures are available; in how many of these cases legal aid was granted; and what was the cost to the legal aid fund.
  248
  programmes was set at £142 million. Provision for 1991–92 totals £170 million and for 1992–93, £190 million, a 50 per cent. increase over the comparable figure for 1989–90. Each regional and islands council determines priorities for expenditure within its capital allocation.

  All but five of the 103 programmes of improvements required to meet the standard of lead set in the EC drinking water directive are due to be completed by the end of this year. It is estimated that remaining expenditure on treatment to meet the EC lead standard will amount to about £1·7 million in 1990–91 and about £1 million in 1991–92.

  The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 set tighter standards for lead. To meet the new standards authorities are currently assessing the expenditure required, and this will be taken into account in determining allocations in future years.

  Health Authority Revenue
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the annual budgets over the last five years up to and including 31 March, and the percentage they have been over or under Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation parity in each of these years, for(a) Greater Glasgow, (b) Highland, (c) Tayside, (d) Central and (e) Borders and Dumfries and Galloway health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On the assumption that the reference to Central health board should be to Forth Valley health board the information is as follows:

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information for 1988–89 is set out in the table:

  Legal aid for actions of divorce: Scotland

  Number of applications made

  Number of applications granted

  Cost1 £

  Sheriff Court

  11,182

  8,610

  5,330,902

  Court of Session

  217

  143

  2,223,971

  Total

  11·399

  8,753

  7,554,873

  1 The cost shown represents expenditure in 88–89, not expenditure on cases for which legal aid was granted in 1988–89.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were detained in Scotland under section 26 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In 1989 the number of episodes of emergency detention under section 24 of the Act which
  249
  were subsequently continued under section 26 was 1,211. This figure includes patients who were subject to these detention provisions on more than one occasion during the year.

  Social Work
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was local authority expenditure on social work in Scotland for each of the last five years; and what is the expected figure for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  From information supplied by local authorities in Scotland net expenditure (cash) on social work was:

  £ million

  1985–86

  316·7

  1986–87

  334·8

  1987–88

  375·5

  1988–89

  421·6

  1989–90

  1473·4

  1990–91

  2552·1

  1provisional outturn

  2budget estimate

  Notes: Figures up to 1989–90 are exclusive of central administration; those for 1990–91 are inclusive.

  Expenditure in future years is a matter for local authorities to determine.

  Fine Collection Officers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fine collection officers are now in post in Scotland; and in what sheriff courts they are based.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There are 15 fines officer posts. The sheriff courts at which they are based and the number at each court are as follows:

  Numbers

  Aberdeen

  1

  Airdrie

  1

  Dundee

  1

  Dunfermline

  1

  Dumbarton

  1

  Edinburgh

  2

  Falkirk

  1

  Glasgow

  13

  Hamilton

  2

  Kilmarnock

  1

  Paisley

  1

  Includes one post presently vacant and in the process of being filled.

  Offenders' Hostels
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hostels there are in Scotland providing accommodation for offenders; how many bed places these contain; what the occupancy rate was in the latest year for which figures are available; and what percentage was taken up by occupants on bail.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Offender accommodation grant-aided by the Scottish Office under section 27B of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 takes a variety of forms. The number of bed places fluctuates but is currently around 90. Detailed information on the level and nature of bed occupancy is not available centrally. A recording system is,250
  however, in the process of being introduced, and a preliminary assessment of some of the accommodation has indicated an occupancy rate of 80 per cent.

  Security Firms
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees of his Department have been made redundant in the last five years in consequence of the employment of private security firms.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Three patrolmen at the marine laboratory, Aberdeen, were made redundant on 30 November 1986 as a result of security duties being taken over by a private security firm.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of legal expenses incurred by the Scottish Legal Aid Board in connection with their recent application to the Court of Session to countermand the order for the chairman of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to appear before a sheriff to explain matters arising from the handling of an application for civil legal aid.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The last such application by the Scottish Legal Aid Board was made over two years ago, and the information requested is not readily available.

  Seals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many grey and common seals were shot in each of the past 10 years, under section 9 of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, during(a) the close season and (b) the rest of the year and what steps he is taking to regulate this killing of seals under the terms of the Berne convention.

  Mr. Lang
  Information is not held centrally on the basis requested. No prior permit, or subsequent reporting of shooting of a seal, is required under the provisions of section 9 of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970.

  My right hon. and learned Friend's obligations under the Berne convention in respect of seals in Scottish waters are met by the provisions and operation of the Conservation of Seals Act.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences have been issued for the shooting of seals under section 10 of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in the years, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1938, 1989 and so far in the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Year

  Licences Issued

  1983

  1—

  1984

  4

  1985

  31

  1986

  34

  1987

  52

  1988

  34

  1989

  0

  21990

  0

  1 No figures are available.

  2 to date.

  251
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current policy on the issuing of licences to shoot and kill grey and common seals for the prevention of damage to fisheries and fish stocks.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is reviewing this matter in the light of a number of current applications for licences.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken in order to assess(a) the scale of damage inflicted upon the stocks of fish farms by birds and seals and (b) the number of birds and seals killed in order to prevent predation at fish farms.

  Mr. Lang
  There is no general requirement for fish farmers to report damage by predators to their stocks or equipment. Applicants for licences to shoot seals under the provisions of section 10(1)(c) of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, or to shoot protected birds under the provisions of section 16(1)(k) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are required to indicate the damage which shooting under licence is expected to prevent and to report the numbers of seals or birds which are shot in accordance with a licence.

  Information on numbers of seals and seabirds shot under provisions other than licences is not available centrally.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the present circumstances and future of the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have received representations both for and against the retention of the Gourock Ropeworks building.

  It is a category A listed building in private ownership for which I hope a suitable use can be found. Its demolition, alteration or extension would require listed building consent in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. I am not aware of any application for listed building consent to Inverclyde district council as planning authority.

  Training
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to ensure that there is adequate training for those with special needs in Scotland; and whether the Training Agency will fund the programme of the Scottish Association for Mental Health at the level of 1989's net cost, plus an appropriate allowance for inflation.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: The Government offer the guarantee of suitable training through youth training to all young persons aged between 16 and 18 years who want a training placement and through employment training to all persons who have been unemployed for over six months and who seek training. To ensure sufficient suitable placements are available to meet the needs of all trainees including those with special needs, the Training Agency contracts for training places with a wide range of training providers throughout Scotland.
  252
  These include voluntary organisations, such as the Scottish Association for Mental Health, with particular interests in providing for specific special needs. The number of contracted places to meet particular special needs is determined by the potential demand for them from people eligible to join either youth training or employment training. The Training Agency does not fund a Scottish Association for Mental Health programme: it contracts with that body through employment training for the provision of training places.

  Syringes (Cumbrae)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will co-ordinate efforts to establish the source of used syringes washed up on the shores of the Isle of Cumbrae over a period of several weeks; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: I am making inquiries locally and will write to the hon. Member.

  Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston Bypass
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the timetabling of the proposed Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: All schemes in the trunk road programme are allocated scheme ready dates which indicate when the necessary preparatory work is expected to be completed. Thereafter, decisions on which schemes will proceed to construction in the following year are taken annually each March on the basis of the relative priorities of the schemes which are ready, and the financial resources available. Preparatory work for an Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass is expected to be completed this year if outstanding objections to the scheme are satisfactorily resolved, but no decision has been taken on when a bypass might be constructed. Decisions on the priorities for funding in 1991–92 and beyond will be greatly assisted by the results of the major trunk and key principal road network review, which will by then be substantially complete.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the capital programme for Scottish Homes for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: Final accounts for 1989–90 are not yet available: Scottish Homes' gross capital programme expenditure is, however, expected to be £299 million. The gross capital programme for 1990–91 is £311 million and assumes that Scottish Homes achieves projected capital receipts of £110 million.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the new build projects undertaken by Scottish Homes in the financial year 1989–90, and the projected new build programme for Scottish Homes for the current financial year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: When approving Scottish Homes' programme for any year my right hon. and learned Friend also agrees the

  253
  amounts which Scottish Homes proposes should be spent on particular functions. The allocation of funds to individual projects is then a matter for Scottish Homes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  El Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake to visit El Salvador to examine the human rights situation there.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans at present to visit El Salvador. We receive regular reports on the human rights situation from our embassy in San Salvador and take appropriate opportunities to register our concerns with the Salvadorean authorities.

  Middle East
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current initiatives to secure the release of United Kingdom hostages in Beirut.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has been taking to gain the release of the British hostages currently held in Beirut; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The release of two American hostages in April shows that Iran and Syria can, if they wish, secure the release of hostages in Lebanon. We are persevering with our efforts to persuade them that the holding of hostages is in no one's interest.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to advance the peace process in the middle east and the release of British hostages held in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the middle east has convinced us more than ever of the urgent need for direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israel. I can see no other starting point for a genuine peace process. We shall continue to work for this with our friends in the region and elsewhere. The grim alternative to dialogue is extremism and more killing.

  The release of two American hostages in April shows that Iran and Syria can, if they wish, secure the release of hostages in Lebanon. We are persevering with our efforts to persuade them that the holding of hostages is in no one's interest.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any further proposals for a peace settlement in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict acceptable to the international community.
  254
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the middle east has convinced us more than ever of the urgent need for direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israel. I can see no other starting point for a genuine peace process. We shall continue to work for this with our friends in the region and elsewhere. The grim alternative to dialogue is extremism arid more

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to visit Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would hope to do so at some stage but has no firm plans at present. However, the Israeli Government are well aware of our views on the urgent need for direct dialogue with representative Palestinians.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the occupation of the west bank and Gaza strip.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Israelis are well aware of our view that they should withdraw from territories occupied in 1967 in the context of a comprehensive settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute; and that pending withdrawal they should administer the occupied territories in accordance with their obligations under international law.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the continuing murders in the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Israeli Government are well aware of our deep concern about the continuing violence in the occupied territories and the numbers of Palestinians killed and wounded. We continue to take every opportunity to urge the Israeli authorities to administer the occupied territories in accordance with international law.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Iraqi authorities regarding President Sadam Hussein's statement concerning Israel on 10 May at a meeting with Yasser Arafat.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are not aware of the statement to which the hon. Member refers. According to our information, President Saddam Hussein did not meet Mr. Arafat on 10 May.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he authorised British Airways officials on flight 657 from Tel Aviv to London on 23 May 1990 to detain the passport of Mr. John Richardson.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have been excluded from Israel for each year since 1985, giving the figures since December 1987 by month.
  255
  Mr. Waldegrave
  No records of this kind of information are available to us.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British embassy was involved in the exclusion of Mr. John Richardson from Tel Aviv airport on 23 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  South Africa
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the timetable for constitutional reform discussed at his most recent meeting with President de Klerk.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During President de Klerk's recent visit, we encouraged him to maintain the momentum of constitutional reform in South Africa. We were impressed by his commitment to move forward as rapidly as possible.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of British money has been made available to black political groups in South Africa; what groups have received this money and what amounts have been paid to them; what are the conditions laid down by the Government for the money to be granted; what procedures have to be adopted to make an application for the money; and who administers it.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A scheme was established in March 1990, separate from our aid programme, to help those organisations previously excluded from the political process in South Africa prepare to enter negotiations. This scheme provides practical support, on a non-discriminatory basis, to those making the transition to normal political activity.

  Since the scheme's inception, we have made £75,000 available and have given assistance to the following organisations: African National Congress (c £10,500), PAC (Internal) (£2,784) and Inkatha (£4,681).

  In each case, the money has been provided in the form of practical material support, designed to help the organisation concerned function as a political party and thus to help towards achieving a negotiated transition to a multi-party democracy.

  Any organisations seeking help under this scheme may apply direct to the British embassy in Cape Town/Pretoria, or to any of the three other British diplomatic offices in South Africa. The scheme is administered by Her Majesty's ambassador in South Africa.

  Colombia
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the implications of the outcome of the recent Colombian elections on the international war against the drug barons.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We congratulate Sr. Gaviria on his victory in the Colombian presidential election and look forward to working with his Government in the fight against international drugs trafficking. President-elect Gaviria has made clear that he intends to continue President Barco's policies directed against the drugs trade.

  Romania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made to the Government of Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We made a number of representations before the recent elections urging the Romanian Government to ensure a free and fair campaign and poll. On 11 May we summoned the Romanian chargé d'affaires to register our concern on this point.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Romania, following the elections which took place there on 20 May.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We hope for warm and co-operative relations with Romania. This will depend in part on continued progress by the Romanian Government towards democracy.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit eastern Europe to discuss political and economic co-operation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to visit Czechoslovakia in late July. We have regular discussions with east European leaders during high-level visits in either direction and in the margins of international gatherings. We are extending our co-operation with these countries ever more widely as they make progress in economic and political reform.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that assistance to the countries of eastern Europe is conditional upon significant political and economic reform.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our policy remains that the type and degree of aid to the reforming eastern European countries should match the stage of political and economic reform they have each reached.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to lessen the cost of visa applications to managers in eastern Europe who wish to visit the United Kingdom to acquire management skills.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Managers from eastern Europe visiting the United Kingdom through the know-how funds are issued visas gratis. Those coming under other auspices are eligible to apply for two-year multiple-entry visas, which are cheaper, pro rata, than single-entry visas.

  German Unification
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy on German unification.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy on German unification.
  257
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy on German unification.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We warmly welcome the prospect of German unification. We are working with the Foreign Ministers of the United States, France, Soviet Union, the two Germanies and others concerned, to settle the external aspects of German unification as soon as possible.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of the reunification of Germany on the United Kingdom's position within the European Community.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 22 May. We welcome German unification as a positive factor for Europe and the Community.

  EC Inter-institutional Conference
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the main conclusions of the European Community inter-institutional conference, held in Strasbourg on 17 May.

  Mr. Maude
  There were no formal conclusions.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the last meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 24 May.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects will be discussed at the next meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he intends to raise at the next European Community Council of Ministers meeting.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters he will be raising at the next meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The issues are likely to include preparations for the Dublin European Council, relations with EFTA, the GATT Uruguay round, and other EC external policies.

  Libya
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will expect to visit Libya and discuss United Kingdom-Libyan relations.
  258
  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has 130 plans to do so.

  Short-range Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Baker and other NATO colleagues at the North Atlantic Council meeting held at Turnberry on 7 and 8 June. NATO agreed at that meeting that negotiations on United States and Soviet short-range nuclear weapons systems in Europe should begin shortly after a CFE agreement is concluded.

  We shall continue to be in close touch with the United States on this subject in preparation for the NATO summit in London from 4 to 6 July.

  EC Policies
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community partners for the development of Community policies.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 9 May. We shall continue to play a constructive role in Community discussions.

  CSCE Conference, Copenhagen
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's aims at the current CSCE conference on the human dimension in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said when he addressed the conference on 5 June, we want the Copenhagen CDH meeting to extend CSCE human rights undertakings, specifically on free and fair elections, the rule of law, and freedom of expression, of association and peaceful assembly, and of movement. We shall also play a full part in the detailed review of participating states' implementation of their CSCE human rights commitments.

  Guyana
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the President of Guyana.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to meet the President of Guyana.

  Czech and Slovak Federal Republic
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic since the elections held on 8 June.
  259
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the elections in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on 8 June.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We warmly welcome these free and peaceful elections. The exceptionally high turnout shows the enthusiasm with which the Czechoslovak people have greeted the restoration of democracy in their country. Our relations with Czechoslovakia are excellent.

  We look forward to the formation of a new Government. They can rely on our help and support in meeting the challenges ahead.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will review his policy regarding the Cambodian seat at the United Nations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  With our EC partners we are reviewing our policy towards Cambodia's representation at the United Nations. In doing so we shall be taking into account the efforts of a range of countries, notably the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to achieve a comprehensive political settlement.

  British Colonies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning democratic arrangements for residents of small British colonies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have received no such representations in respect of our Caribbean, Atlantic or Pacific dependent territories.

  India
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Indian Foreign Minister.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs looks forward to meeting the Indian Foreign Minister again as soon as both their programmes allow this.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning proposals to make Antarctica a world park.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have received representations from many hon. Members and members of the public. We fully support and comply with the relevant obligations under the Antarctic treaty system and the Antarctic minerals convention, which offer the best possible means of protecting the Antarctic environment.

  Chile
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the support which Her Majesty's Government are giving to the democratic Government of Chile.
  260
  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have increased our contribution to the World University Service to enable it to help with the repatriation of exiled Chileans. We have also doubled our bilateral technical assistance programme.

  European Community Foreign Ministers
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Ministers of the other European Community countries; and whether he discussed the importance attached by the European Community to the implementation of measures agreed by the Twelve.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the subject of implementation of European Community legislation at the informal meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers on 19 and 20 May.

  Nuclear Arms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of how proposals to extend the competence of the European Economic Community into matters of non-proliferation would affect the United Kingdom's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty;

  (2) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards extending the competence of the European Economic Community into matters of non-proliferation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no proposals for such extension of European Community competence.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British Government's preparations for the nonproliferation treaty fourth review conference in Geneva in August-September.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have played a full and constructive role in the preparations for the fourth review conference of the non-proliferation treaty. The third preparatory committee successfully concluded procedural matters and the allocation of administrative posts.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his proposals to extend and develop the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 15 December 1989 to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to put forward at the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in regard to developing energy aid via provisions of articles III and IV of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not intend to put forward any proposals in this regard. We do, however, already provide assistance to a number of developing countries, via the "Footnote A" projects, under the International Atomic Energy Agency's technical assistance programme, for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
  261
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the development of the British Trident system is compatible with the Government's obligations under article VI of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Negotiations on the reduction of strategic weapons are being conducted by the United States and Soviet Union. We welcome the prospect of a START agreement this year. Our position with regard to the British strategic deterrent is that, if United States and Soviet strategic arsenals were further reduced very substantially and there had been no significant improvements in defensive capabilities, we would consider how best we might contribute to the arms control process in the light of the changed circumstances.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the composition of the British delegation to the fourth review conference of the non-proliferation treaty in Geneva in August–September.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Kingdom-based non-governmental organisations have been granted observer status for the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference; how non-governmental organisations obtain such status; and what financial assistance is Her Majesty's Government giving to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations to attend the conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to my answer of 11 June to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has prepared an educational video on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty for use in schools and colleges.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. However, the arms control and disarmament research unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes notes on arms control on an approximately monthly basis and a quarterly review. Both publications regularly include information on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the fourth review conference and are available on request.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken to fulfil their obligations under article IV of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and what initiatives the Government are considering to expand the provisions of article IV to include other energy sources.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We contribute annually to the "Footnote A" projects, under the International Atomic Energy Agency's technical assistance programme, and there is a considerable amount of trade and co-operation in the nuclear area involving British companies. We are not considering any initiatives to expand the provisions of article IV.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken to encourage Albania to become a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  262
  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. In common with the other depository powers of the NPT, we do not have diplomatic relations with Albania.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those meetings concerning nuclear weapons proliferation arid nonproliferation measures at which his Department will be represented between now and the fourth quinquennial review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The three preparatory committees for the NPT review conference have been concluded. No further multilateral meetings devoted specifically to this subject are planned before the review conference, although the subject will be on the agenda of a number of bilateral meetings.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives are being considered by Her Majesty's Government to expand the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty so that source or special fissionable material or equipment or material specially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, can no longer be transferred from states party to the treaty to non-nuclear weapons states for non-peaceful purposes without the application of treaty safeguards.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. In accordance with article III of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the nuclear suppliers guidelines to which all major nuclear suppliers subscribe, source or special fissionable material or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material may be transferred to non-nuclear weapon states only for peaceful purposes and only if the source or special fissionable material is subject to safeguards.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now re-open the British embassy in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no plans at present to re-open our embassy in Kabul.

  Drugs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the interdiction of drug trafficking in the Caribbean basin.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Local Governments and aid donors have taken steps to combat the flow of drugs through the Caribbean, but trafficking remains a major problem. We recognise the seriousness of this threat and are committed to helping Caribbean nations fight it. We have provided over £3 million of anti-drugs assistance to the region since 1987 and will provide a further £1·2 million to help our Caribbean dependent territories in their efforts. We co-operate fully with other anti-drugs agencies in the region.

  Lithuania
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Lithuania; and what Her Majesty's Government are doing to assist its economic recovery.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Unfortunately, talks between Vilnius and Moscow have still not been launched, despite the readiness of the Lithuanians to suspend the legislation adopted since the declaration of independence. The economic measures imposed by Moscow continue.

  We have no programme of assistance specifically for Lithuania. But Lithuania is able to participate in our wider programme of exchange and co-operation with the Soviet Union.

  Open Skies Conference
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the open skies conference in Budapest which closed on 13 May.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are disappointed that it was not possible to reach agreement on an open skies regime at the last round of negotiations in Budapest. We remain determined to pursue an open skies agreement, which could make a significant contribution to confidence building. We hope for an early indication that the Soviet Union is willing to negotiate constructively on the outstanding issues.

EMPLOYMENT

  Mentally Ill People
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take to avert staff redundancies and unfilled training places in the programmes run by the providers of training for those with mental health problems.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Contracts with providers are negotiated for the number of places considered appropriate to meet local needs and in particular those who have special training needs. Training providers are responsible for running their programmes in accordance with their contract. Thus they are responsible for their own staff, including staff redundancies should they occur.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total sum of money allocated to training and enterprise councils; what percentage of this sum has been taken up; and what percentage of training and enterprise council funding is provided from European Community sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total budget allocated to training and enterprise councils in 1990–91 will be dependent on when individual training and enterprise councils become operational. To date the combined budget for the first 13 training and enterprise councils that have signed operational contracts is £215 million.

  The extent to which training and enterprise councils will receive funding from the European Community
  264
  through the European social fund cannot be determined fully until individual projects are considered by my Department.

  National Insurance Credits
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether a person who has been disallowed national insurance credits for not being available for or not actively seeking work has the right to appeal against the decision; what other procedures are open to them if they wish to dispute the disallowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Employment Exchanges
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give full details of the consultative process to be undertaken by his Department before he considers closing any local part-time employment exchange.

  Mr. Eggar
  When the employment service plans to close a part-time local office it follows the established practice of ensuring that the hon. Member in whose constituency the part-time office is located is informed of the reason for the planned closure.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on(a) research, (b) prevention and (c) compensation for repetitive strain injuries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places general duties on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees; and in particular the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health. These general duties apply to the prevention of repetitive strain injury and are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and local authorities.

  The HSE intends to publish later this year new guidance on work-related upper limb disorders which will give authoritative advice to employers on ways to prevent them. HSE funds an extramural biomedical research programme which includes support for research into repetitive strain injury. A report from the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), "Clinical Epidemiological Study of Relations between Upper Limb Soft Tissue Disorders and Repetitive Movements at Work", has recently been published.

  The HSE has also funded research projects at the IOM and the university of Birmingham which investigate the relationship between work routines and activities and specific upper limb disorders. Reports on these studies are still awaited.

  State compensation for industrial injuries is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of any research commissioned or financed by him on square mesh panels as a means of conservation.

  Mr. Curry
  We are currently spending about £1·25 million a year on research related to fishing gear. Square mesh panels are one of the several options presently under investigation in our work to develop more selective fishing gear which will improve conservation by reducing the take of undersized fish. The marine laboratory of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland at Aberdeen has already undertaken, in addition to basic research on square mesh netting, a study on the behaviour of fish in codends with a square mesh panel and a further study on the process of capture in a seine net with various codends including one with a square mesh panel. This summer a study, in conjunction with the Shetland islands council, will investigate as part of a wider project the comparative catches of a codend with a square mesh panel and a conventional codend in a twin trawl. Depending upon the results further studies may then be made.

  Further, the Government work with and fund work by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. In 1989–90 a trial was undertaken comparing the catches of a conventional 90mm trawl and one fitted with an 80mm square mesh panel and a further trial mainly looking at codend circumference and extension length also did some work on a square mesh panel. Further trials are taking place this summer in both trawl and seine nets and directed at haddock and cod as trials so far have focused on whiting. The effect of factors such as gear shape and towing on the openness of square mesh will also be studied. We also authorised an industry-led and funded trial to use 80mm square mesh panel rather than the minimum legal size of 90mm.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate losses to farmers and dealers in the United Kingdom as a result of bans on imports by European Community governments in the light of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  At any time there are many factors affecting markets and no meaningful estimate can be made of the specific impact of the prohibitions on trade recently applied by several member states. In the wake of increased support to the market under the CAP regime for beef and the agreement reached last week in the Agriculture Council, I am pleased to note that market prices have improved significantly.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will support a unified European Community research programme to study the causes and treatments of BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. The Council of Ministers agreed on 7 June to ask the European Commission to implement a Community-wide programme of research into BSE.
  266
  David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) number and (b) percentage of beef herds affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy on a county-by-county basis.

  Mr. Maclean
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is not a disease affecting cattle herds but rather one which affects individual animals within a herd.

  The information requested for Great Britain up to 11 June 1990 is as follows:

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Per cent, of total beef herds in county

  Scilly Isles

  0

  0·00

  Cleveland

  0

  0·00

  Durham

  9

  0·96

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0·00

  Northumberland

  12

  1·06

  Cumbria

  15

  0·56

  Yorkshire North

  22

  0·97

  Yorkshire South

  1

  0·31

  Yorkshire West

  2

  0·24

  Humberside

  12

  2·42

  Lancashire

  6

  0·63

  Merseyside

  0

  0·00

  Manchester

  0

  0·00

  Derbyshire

  5

  0·49

  Leicestershire

  5

  0·78

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  0·97

  Cheshire

  0

  0·00

  Shropshire

  7

  0·52

  Staffordshire

  7

  0·67

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  23

  1·41

  Warwickshire

  5

  1·00

  West Midlands

  1

  0·97

  Lincolnshire

  5

  0·65

  Norfolk

  18

  2·65

  Suffolk

  9

  2·37

  Bedfordshire

  3

  2·17

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  2·12

  Northamptonshire

  5

  1·44

  Essex

  5

  1·66

  Hertfordshire

  6

  3·16

  London

  1

  2·08

  Berkshire

  3

  1·67

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  0·51

  Oxfordshire

  6

  1·45

  Hampshire

  12

  2·32

  Isle of Wight

  1

  0·93

  Surrey

  9

  3·14

  Sussex West

  9

  3·07

  Kent

  11

  1·96

  Sussex East

  10

  2·22

  Gloucestershire

  7

  0·97

  Avon

  8

  2·00

  Wiltshire

  20

  3·78

  Dorset

  12

  2·02

  Somerset

  27

  2·01

  Devonshire

  37

  1·10

  Cornwall

  42

  2·01

  Gwynedd

  7

  0·37

  Clwyd

  8

  0·68

  Powys

  63

  2·08

  Dyfed

  25

  0·72

  Glamorgan South

  1

  0·81

  Glamorgan Mid

  1

  0·25

  Glamorgan West

  1

  0·30

  Gwent

  11

  1·54

  Highland

  13

  0·73

  Grampian

  35

  1·85

  Tayside

  16

  2·04

  Strathclyde

  10

  0·47

  Central

  4

  1·14

  Fife

  6

  2·76

  Lothian

  2

  0·92

  Borders

  6

  0·87

  267

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Per cent, of total beef herds in county

  Dumfries

  13

  0·93

  Western Isles

  0

  0·00

  Orkney

  4

  0·48

  Shetland

  0

  0·00

  Agricultural Improvements
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his review of standard costs for agricultural improvements; and what aspects he will be taking into account in determining the uprating factor.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is currently reviewing labour and material costs relevant to the setting of standard costs for agricultural grants. The question of any announcement must await the outcome of this review.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of any recently produced reports by the French nuclear authorities indicating the potential dangers posed to agriculture in France and the United Kingdom arising from an accident at nuclear power stations located on the channel coast in northern France.

  Mr. Curry
  I understand that an annual report produced recently by the head of Electricité de France's general inspectorate for nuclear safety presented an overview of nuclear safety within the company as at the end of 1989. I am not aware that it indicates any new or increased threat to agriculture in France and the United Kingdom.

  Under an existing bilateral agreement, signed in July 1983, we would be notified immediately of a serious incident involving the release of radioactivity in France. We would also be informed under the terms of both the International Atomic Energy Agency convention on early notification and decision 87/600/Euratom of the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Prompt notification of a nuclear incident in France would enable the Department to initiate precautionary monitoring and other action to protect the food chain. We would do this within the framework of the new national response plan established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which encompasses the radioactive incident monitoring network (RIMNET).

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the percentage of the British sheep flock which had scrapie in 1984.
  268
  Mr. Maclean
  Accurate information about its incidence is not available since scrapie is not a notifiable disease but it is currently estimated to affect about 10 per cent. of British sheep flocks.

  Poultry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has with regard to the chemicals used on Spanish poultry post slaughter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no information about the use of chemicals on Spanish poultry post slaughter.

  The rules for the production of poultry meat for intra-Community trade are laid down in EC directive 71/118. All consignments of poultry meat imported from other EC member states for human consumption must be accompanied by a veterinary health certificate confirming that they have been produced in accordance with the directive and passed as fit for human consumption.

  Slaughterhouse Standards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food following the report by his veterinary officers on slaughterhouse standards, what percentage of premises visited had satisfactory health standards in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The reports by the veterinary officers are made to the local authorities (district councils) which are responsible for the enforcement of hygiene legislation. The information provided is for the local authority to act upon.

  Contaminated Feed
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 15 May,Official Report, column 395, if he will make a further statement about animals, other than pigs, having been affected by contaminated feed.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have now received a report that some of the contaminated feed was fed to breeding geese and mallard on a Derbyshire farm in March. A sample of feed has been analysed by the Ministry and traces of isofenphos have been detected in it but at very much lower levels than those found earlier in contaminated pig feed.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to permit the grazing of set-aside land by farm livestock.

  Mr. Curry
  One of a number of options for the better management of set-aside land which I have been considering is a limited form of grazed fallow. I shall shortly be inviting applications for the third year of the scheme and will announce then any changes to the conditions which I decide to introduce.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
The Duke of Richmond Lennox and Gordon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Shaftesbury—Took the Oath.

Defence Review
2.37 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made with their defence review.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are examining options for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces which will enable us to support and preserve the key elements of our defence posture in the light of changing international circumstances.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he recall that a few months ago the Government were declaring that a full-scale defence review was not desirable? Have they had second thoughts on that matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, no. We are examining the options for change in order that we can safeguard our vital interests while adapting to the new circumstances.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that we always had rather small regular forces and that during both of the last two great wars we were dependent upon people who volunteered for part-time service long before the wars started, will my noble friend say that due recognition will be given in the defence review to the need for good territorial forces?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. I am sure that full account will be taken of it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, when under the defence review the Government examine the commitments that they believe they have, will they give thought to how to maximise what is known as the peace dividend? When the Government look at whatever scope for reduction there may be, to what extent will they consider retraining those people who are presently employed in the armament and defence business?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are examining a wide range of possible options and proposals. When the Government have reached a view, the results will be announced and debated in Parliament.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be fully aware, my noble friend Lord Mayhew is an expert on aircraft carriers. In the defence review, what policy do the Government have in relation to aircraft carriers?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I regret to have to say that I cannot go into details. The question of different units and different forms of weapons will be looked at in the context of the wider considerations.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while recognising the need for a review and reconsideration of our armed forces the vast majority of the public are convinced that Britain should not drop its guard in any way?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We must maintain a secure defence and keep it up to date.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, during the review will the Government give full weight to the views of the Minister for Defence Procurement, Mr. Alan Clark?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no doubt that the views of all Ministers will be taken fully into account.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that the infantry will not be abolished?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that I can give an assurance that the infantry will not be abolished.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that following the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Turnberry and the constructive speech made there by the Prime Minister the whole role of NATO is now under the most careful consideration by Her Majesty's Government and the other member governments of NATO? Can the noble Lord give an undertaking to the House that there will be a full and open review of our defence expenditure against that background? Can he undertake that this will be made public as a subject for debate in due course?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we do not believe that recent events diminish the need for NATO. The Soviet Union has a formidable military capability and will continue to have one for the foreseeable future. We therefore believe in a secure defence. However, the NATO Summit which will take place in London next month will address the question of how to strike the right balance between preserving the essentials of NATO as it is now and adapting it to meet the new circumstances.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, I hope that I did not give the impression that NATO would be diminished. However, is it not the case that it was clear from the Prime Minister's speech in Turnberry that she envisages a different role for NATO in the future?
Lord Reay: My Lords, this is a time of great hope but also of considerable uncertainty. We hope for a

295
future relationship between East and West based on co-operation, not confrontation. We hope that we are moving in that direction.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, since the world is so obviously in a state of flux is it not a nonsense even to suggest that we make a full disclosure of our defence intentions and our general position?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, we are examining all options with a view to making sure that we can safeguard our vital interests while adapting to new circumstances.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the Minister say when we shall be told of the Government's decisions on these matters and in what form? Meantime, is he aware that it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Government are being rather limited, slow and secretive about what they are doing?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, when a conclusion has been reached it will be announced and debated in Parliament. I am afraid that it is too early to say when a conclusion can be reached.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that many people in the House think that in view of the rapid change and flux of events in the international world we should applaud the Government's caution before rushing into over-hasty decisions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble and learned friend says. I am sure that we should not be too hasty.

Tobacco Growing in the EC: Subsidy
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current cost to the United Kingdom of the contribution to the subsidy and support given by the European Community to the tobacco growing industry in the Community.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the United Kingdom contributes to the European Community budget as a whole and not to individual sectors. Furthermore, the UK's contribution each year is abated according to the balance of the UK contribution and receipts in the previous year. The cost of the Community's tobacco regime in 1989 was 1,139 million ecus—that is, £746 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative reply. In view of the decline in smoking in Europe, is it not a fact that the European tobacco industry is now pushing its highly dangerous sulphur-orientated product in the third world? Is supporting an effort of that kind, with all the likely effects on the health of the third world, something with which Her Majesty's
296
Government wish to be associated or even should spend one penny on?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, two-thirds of the European Community's exports outside the Community go to the developed countries. The major trading partners are the United States of America and Eastern Europe, particularly Bulgaria and Romania. Only one-third of third country exports goes to the developing world, with Africa absorbing most of this. Egypt is the single most important importer of Community tobacco, purchasing 50 per cent. of African imports.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that your Lordships' Select Committee on European Communities affairs criticised price proposals for the tobacco regime as recently as 1988 on both financial and health grounds? Will the noble Earl ask his right honourable friend the Minister to consider pressing for a review of the Community's policy on tobacco growing to take account of justified criticisms as well as suggestions that growers are not able to change to other crops for reasons of climate and soil conditions? In this age of biotechnology, the defence of "no alternative crop" seems particularly strange.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question is yes. On the second question, the tobacco regime is important because of its role in safeguarding income and employment in the poorer areas of the Mediterranean member states, particularly Greece and Italy. Tobacco cultivation is labour intensive and the land is of poor quality. There are no real alternative crops available to these farmers. This explains the difficulties experienced by the United Kingdom in seeking to reduce the costs of the regime.
Furthermore, about 200,000 holdings are involved in tobacco cultivation. During 1986 almost 800,000 people were engaged in tobacco production. In Greece up to one-third of the agicultural labour force is involved in the cultivation of tobacco.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in answer to a previous question the noble Lord said that only one-third of the total crop is exported to the third world. Is the Minister saying on behalf of the Government that because of employment, investment and profits in Europe, they are prepared to export this death-dealing tobacco and have it dumped in third world countries, regardless of health or morality? Will the Government come out firmly and say, "That is wrong and we shall do everything to stop it"?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an extremely good point. The situation poses a dilemma. The Community is currently introducing a whole series of measures aimed at reducing the prevalence of cancer as part of the Europe against Cancer programme. The Community's massive support for the production of largely high tar tobacco makes no sense at all in this context.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in ancient times those areas of Greece and Turkey which now produce tobacco were once covered with beautiful, carbon dioxide consuming woodlands which could also be made employment intensive? Perhaps that should be brought to the attention of the appropriate members of those great countries.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his observation. I shall endeavour to pass it on.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this area of cultivation in Europe is, according to succeeding reports of the Court of Auditors, one in which there is widespread fraud and irregularity? Will the Government give due attention to that point? Is the noble Earl further aware that according to the figures he has made available to us today the net contribution by the United Kingdom to the sum he mentioned is in the area of £150 million per annum?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as regards the first part of the question of the noble Lord, the Government take fraud extremely seriously. As regards the figure of £150 million, I do not have the exact figure but it must be in that region.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Earl draw for the benefit of the House any useful comparison between the number of people killed by the coca leaf, against which we send our navies and air forces, and Close killed by the tobacco leaf, the subsidisation of which we contribute to to the tune of £150 million a year?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, over 400,000 people die in the Community each year because of their tobacco habit. In the UK alone that costs the health service around £500 million a year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of that answer of my noble friend, would it not be better if the employment problems of the countries to which he referred were met by converting the land at present used for tobacco to food production, for which there is an enormous market adjoining them in Eastern Europe? Will my noble friend say whether, as a matter of principle, Her Majesty's Government favour using public money to subsidise the production of tobacco?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I feel that is going fairly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is there any hope of persuading manufacturers not to expunge the health warning from the packets of tobacco which they export to the third world?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, again I shall draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Sandeels: Fishing Licences
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many fishing vessels are eligible to apply for a licence to catch sandeels in the Shetland fishery, and how many have applied.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the records of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland show that some 15 vessels are currently eligible for a licence to fish for sandeels in the Shetland inshore waters. To date, the department has received 10 applications and has issued eight licences. In recognition of the decline of sandeels in this area the Shetland Inshore Waters Sandeel Fishery is to close on 15th June; that is on Friday.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his extremely informative and helpful reply. Will he also tell us whether the licences issued for sandeel fishing carry any restriction on size of catch or numbers of fishing days?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the latest information we have is that the amount of sandeels caught, which is the best test of the size of the fishery, is 2,159 tonnes up to midnight last night. That compares with a figure for last year of 3,500 tonnes for the whole fishery in inshore Shetland waters. The figure for 1984 is 32,000 tonnes.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will know better than I just how big a problem this is. We do not even know what is happening as regards seal predation of sandeels. The effects of that are unknown, as are the effects of sea warming which are still being investigated. It is difficult even to estimate the sandeel population. That is why I was rather surprised to discover that there was no guarantee that the boats that are licensed to fish for sandeels—they are having their licences ended soon—would not be able to increase their fishing intensity in the early part of the season. No restriction was put on the fishing effort or the total catch. Given all the problems, will the Minister take into account some of the points that I and the noble Baroness have made and use them as a guide to licensing in the future?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised various points. I am well aware of the various views on how to control this fishery. We feel that by making a cut-off date of 15th June as opposed to 30th July last year we are cutting the fishery back. The catch of sandeels fluctuates greatly from year to year. One can experience several good or bad years in a row. The concept of a sustainable yield that can be maintained over a long period does

299
not apply in this case. That is why we have controlled access to the fishery rather than set a quota. I shall try to set the mind of the noble Lord at rest on the matter of research. Only yesterday my department announced that it would charter a Shetland fishing vessel for research. The objective of that research is to explain the recent shortage of food—not all sea birds are affected—particularly for kittiwakes and the Arctic terns which are affected as they feed on the small O-group sandeels in surface waters.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Question refers specifically to the Shetland fishery, but do similar problems apply in the estuaries of other rivers in Scotland and what restrictions are imposed in other areas beyond Shetland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the other area that is of concern is the Minch. The noble Lord will know that area well. We have placed a restriction on the number of vessels in that area. They are restricted to the track record that has been achieved over the past four years by the vessels fishing in that fishery. I understand that only 10 licences have been issued this year for that fishery. We are keeping that area under review. If we feel that catches are becoming excessive, we shall close the fishery.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that in the past three years there has been an almost complete failure of breeding by certain species of birds in the area. That appears to be associated with the catastrophic decline in the number of sandeels. While the research which the noble Lord has just mentioned is taking place—I warmly welcome that research—would it not be wise to suspend commercial fishing from next year until the cause of the catastrophic decline is known?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we are dealing here not only with the shortage of the sandeels, which is affecting certain species of birds but not all in the Shetland inshore waters, but also with the livelihood of the fishermen of the area. One has to consider that latter point also. We therefore have not considered it appropriate to ban fishing and jeopardise that livelihood. The latest scientific advice on the state of the Shetland stocks and the need for further measures is being considered. The noble Lord should take into account the amount of sandeels that are eaten not just by the sea birds but also by fish and seals. Far and away the lowest number is taken by the fishery. I understand what the noble Lord is saying and I know of the extreme concern that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has as regards this area. That is why we are spending considerable amounts of money on research. On one research programme we are spending £365,000 to try to get to the bottom of the problem.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as this problem was first identified in 1986, is it not rather disappointing that the Minister is still talking in terms of the future as regards chartering the research vessel? I understood him to say that the department would charter a vessel for research. However, just over a
300
year ago we were discussing the need for such a vessel. I wonder why that exercise is taking so long. Will the Minister reassure the House that the research will be undertaken without too much further delay?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Baroness must recognise that my department is undertaking ongoing research involving a considerable amount of money. That work is undertaken by the marine laboratory which monitors catch compositions and does the basic scientific work. The research to which I referred is additional work which specifically addresses the problems associated with the bird populations at the southern end of Shetland and round Fair Isle. The noble Baroness should not be under any illusions—work has been going on.
Regarding the fishery itself, I shall be very happy to send the noble Baroness figures for the fishery which show the decline in the amount of this type of fish which has been taken, for the reasons stated.

Nuclear Decommissioning Costs
3 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest estimates of the cost of nuclear decommissioning.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government do not make estimates of the cost of decommissioning nuclear facilities. The work of decommissioning nuclear facilities and estimates of the cost of that work are matters for the operators of nuclear facilities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, then should not the Government make estimates in view of the fact that they have already taken nuclear energy out of their privatisation programme? Is the noble Viscount aware that the costs have become such a scandal that the National Audit Office has been asked to provide a review of those costs? Is he further aware that in one year alone British Nuclear Fuels' estimate of decommissioning costs rose from £450 million to £4.6 billion?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords the arrangements for making financial provision for decommissioning costs is a management matter for the nuclear industry. In connection with the privatisation of the electricity industry the Government considered it important to ensure that the industry's estimates were fully assessed. An independent study of CEGB decommissioning cost estimates was undertaken by the UKAEA, the results of which were incorporated in the calculation of provisions appearing in the board's 1988–89 accounts. I am advised that BNFL estimates the cost of decommissioning its existing facilities and those planned for the future at £4.6 billion in 1988 money values. Those amounts are recoverable in due course from customers.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the statement which was reportedly made by Mr. Wakeham at the weekend that because of nuclear energy's contribution to a cleaner environment the nuclear energy industry in this country may be worthy of a second chance? If that is so and the Government are considering lifting the moratorium that they have placed on the building of nuclear power stations until 1994, would it not be a blunder of the worst kind to rush into a programme of decommissioning of nuclear power stations at this time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, what my right honourable friend said is very interesting. I also know that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is deeply interested in the environment. I must tell him and your Lordships that the generation of electricity from nuclear power makes a useful contribution towards combating the greenhouse effect, since it produces no CO2. In the United Kingdom alone generation of a similar amount of power from fossil fuels would increase our annual CO2 production by over 10 million tonnes.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since the nuclear stations will be decommissioned at a cost of £4·6 billion, can the noble Viscount say over what period that will be spread? Will he also say, if the nuclear industry is being taken out of the privatisation provisions for the electricity industry, whether the £4·6 billion will fall to the taxpayer?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I should not like to confuse or mislead the House by saying that the £4·6 billion is the amount assessed by the industry for decommissioning. That is the provision for BNFL alone. I am advised that the estimates of the average decommissioning costs underlying the provisions in the CEGB's 1988–89 accounts were £599 million for each Magnox station and £617 million for each AGR station. On that basis the total cost of decommissioning Magnox stations in England and Wales would be £4,790 million. For AGR stations the total cost would be £3,085 million. The expenditure of such sums will be spread over a very long period.
Lord Jay: My Lords, do the Government know whether the alleged low cost of producing nuclear power in France fully takes into account decommissioning costs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, every nuclear operator has to make its own assessment of costs. I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell the noble Lord whether the French industry assesses its costs on the same basis.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the factor which renders all those calculations worthy of fairyland is the unknown value to be placed on the transfer price for recoverable plutonium in anything up to 100 years from now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Earl. He has a very good point.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount is well aware—because we have debated the matter before—that there is a another side to the question of the use of nuclear fuel and the greenhouse effect. The case that he put forward takes into account neither the nuclear waste which is produced by the nuclear industry nor the method of construction of power stations. Will the noble Viscount tell the House, in view of the figures and in view of the figure of £25 billion which was mentioned when the National Audit Office was asked to undertake a review, whether the Government have put any money aside in order to defray those costs, because, as I understand it, if that figure of £25 billion is correct, there is a necessity for a sinking fund of over £8 billion now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, unlike other methods of power generation, the costs of the fuel cycle are included in the assessment of the cost of nuclear generation. The relative economics of nuclear power might look rather different if the environmental costs of fossil fuel generation such as acid rain and CO2 emissions were similarly taken into account. Regarding the noble Lord's second question, the CEGB is putting money aside to provide for the decommissioning of its stations in due course. It is not a question of no money being put aside, it is being put aside on a regular basis.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It has been agreed through the usual channels that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne should make an opening speech immediately after that of the noble Lord. He believes that that will be for the convenience of the House. That still leaves other speakers the generous limit—and I hope that it will be a limit—of 14 minutes.

Industrial and Economic Recovery: DTI's Role
3.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to the role of the Department of Trade and Industry, particularly in promoting industrial recovery and a proper balance in the economy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The subject of our debate today is the role of the Department of Trade and Industry. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that the last opportunity we had for a full debate on this subject was in February 1988, when the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, introduced the White Paper entitled DTI—department for Enterprise. Since that time nearly two and a half years ago, clearly much water has flowed under the economic bridge and we have thought it right to

303
make available to noble Lords a further opportunity to debate the role of the DTI in the light of its performance since then. I should say in passing that it is perhaps significant that this debate takes place in opposition time rather than in government time, as was the case last time round; but more of that later.
My Motion refers not simply to the role of the DTI as such but also and particularly to the departmental role in promoting industrial recovery and a proper balance in the economy. I have phrased it in that manner because I believe that noble Lords would wish to have an opportunity not just to reflect on the role of the DTI as set out in the White Paper but also to consider the wider question of whether there might be other ways forward which would be of greater benefit in the economic difficulties that at present beset us.
I said that much had happened since February 1988. That is true. Much has changed. For instance, the British economy, about which there was a good deal of trumpeting on that occasion, has hit the rocks, not to mince words. We now again have a serious inflation problem. We have an appalling balance of payments problem. Interest rates are far too high for comfort. Unemployment is again on the rise. So the climate today is quite different from that of early 1988 and our view of the DTI's role must accordingly be set against that background. When he comes to wind up from these Benches, my noble friend Lord Peston will address that background.
What also has changed—I come nearer to home—is the number of Lords opposite who are prepared to stand up and speak in a debate such as this. On that day in February 1988 there were eight Conservative speakers on the list. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, introduced the debate. He was followed by, among others, two former Secretaries of State: the noble Lords, Lord Joseph and Lord Jenkin of Roding. Undoubtedly there were very distinguished speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, a self-confessed admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Young, congratulated him handsomely. The noble Lord, Lord Young, himself a self-confessed admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, congratulated him handsomely, and for good measure congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who had previously congratulated him. So, as they say, a good time was had by all.
Today, sadly we are missing all those Conservative noble Lords. From the Benches opposite—apart from the Minister, who I understand will speak twice in this debate, thus making weight, if I may say so—we have the noble Lords, Lord Boardman, Lord Lyell and Lord Harmar-Nicholls: the boys, perhaps—I mean no possible offence—who stand on the burning deck whence all but they have fled.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Lord to say that, as he has reminded the House, the last debate was in government time and so government supporters were justifying their policies. Now the debate is in opposition time. Is the noble Lord going to justify opposition policies in greater detail than we have had so far?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He will have plenty of opportunity to make his point when he comes to speak as his name is on the list of speakers.
Could it possibly be that those noble Lords who were defending government policy at the time have, to coin a phrase, no longer stomach for the fight? That is an expression that I have heard before and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will address himself to that question. Or perhaps they are too busy nursing their seats in the boardrooms of newly privatised companies.
I can see the problem here. If, as a former Cabinet Minister, you are invited to join the board of a company that you have helped to privatise (such as, for instance, Cable and Wireless) and you find that a competing former Cabinet Minister is installed on the board of a competitor company that he has helped to privatise as well, you certainly have to look to your laurels. Although it is a matter of some surmise, you may decide that you would have done better to opt for a company that you had privatised, where there was no possibility of competition because you have created a private monopoly (such as British Gas).
On the other hand, you might just say, along with the rest of us, that it was high time that the Prime Minister stepped in with clear rules to stop this modern version of pork-barrel politics. Last month, the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place pronounced its verdict on the performance of the DTI. Rarely, the committee said, can a government department's discharge of its responsibilities have been held in such low esteem among others involved. That is about as damning a verdict as you can get.
That verdict was delivered after an assessment of DTI performance against the objectives set out in the White Paper. I propose to follow that committee in adopting the same procedure. The White Paper set out the role; we must look at the performance. But, to be fair—I am always fair, I hope, in your Lordships' House—the ministerial team has changed. So we must go on to look and see how far the role of the department has changed with the change in the high command, and what are the implications of that. Lastly, there is the question of whether we are on the right course or whether some different role altogether for the department would make better sense.
Let us look a little more closely at the White Paper. As we might have expected (and indeed expected at the time) it starts with a rewriting of economic history. I shall pass over all that. I made my objections clear at the time and I do not wish to weary your Lordships by repeating them. Chapter 2 opens with the objective:
"We seek to create a larger market by privatisation".
Quite so. There have been two major DTI privatisations since the White Paper; namely, British Steel and Rover. British Steel was privatised on the basis that the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig would continue for several years. But of course Ministers added some words about market conditions and now say that the decision to close is purely commercial.

305
I am quite sure that my noble friends from Scotland will have something to say about that.
On the other hand, Rover was different. That was a company which Ministers were determined to put back into the private sector. But the formula had to be quite original—and original it certainly was. It ran something like this: you decide to whom you want to sell it; you then grant him exclusivity. That allows you to claim later that there were no other offers and that any concession was justified to secure a deal with the chosen acquirer. Since he now has an impregnable negotiating position, the acquirer makes a number of demands: the price must be derisory, the financial assistance lavish, and, in addition, there must be some under-the-counter sweeteners about which nobody is meant to know. The deal is done but of course cannot be kept secret. The result, as we all know now, is that Ministers will almost certainly be told by the European Commission that they have acted illegally and the acquirer will have to pay up. Furthermore, correspondence between the Secretary of State and the acquirer has come to light which has—I say this with all due deliberation—astonished and shocked all those who are used to high standards in public life.
The next objective concerns competition policy. It says.
"We seek to produce a more competitive market by encouraging competition and tackling restrictive practices, cartels and monopol ies".
Again, quite so; but the practice has been wholly different. Believe it or not, in 1988 only 12 out of 281 qualifying mergers were referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—a strike rate of 4 per cent.
And then of course it depends who you are and who your friends are. The acquisition of the House of Fraser by the Fayeds was not blocked, although the Secretary of State had in his hands a copy of the inspectors' report on the affair showing unprecedented deception of the authorities. That is most remarkable.
The brewers were castigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for ruling imperiously over a complex monopoly. We were told with every show of conviction that the Secretary of State would break it up to produce, in the words of the DTI objective, a more competitive market. But, as we know, it did not turn out like that at all. After a good deal of dithering and slithering, the retreat was sounded and the brewers emerged triumphant in victory. The tie, and the monopoly, remains intact. If you have friends in high places, they are worth more than a thousand White Papers.
The next objective is on regulation and competition. We are told,
"We seek to increase confidence in the working of markets by achieving a fair level of protection for the consumer and the investor."
That is very good. But again, the practice has been totally at variance with the objective. The interests of the consumer have been almost wholly disregarded. Witness, most recently, my Lords, the refusal of
306
Ministers to accept the proposal of a former chairman of the National Consumer Council and one of the Government's own Back Benchers in this House to provide a mechanism for a consumer guarantee on goods purchased.
With regard to investors, it is almost embarrassing to review performance against the objective. In the Barlow Clowes case it took 18 months and the invervention of the parliamentary ombudsman before investors were compensated, as they should have been at the outset. Only last week, we hear that Dunsdale Securities, fully authorised under the Financial Services Act, finds that some £20 million of investors' money has gone missing, and that the man behind it had absconded before finally giving himself up to the police; and so it goes on. I know of no practitioner in the City of London—and I know quite a few—who believes that the operation of the Financial Services Act has in any way increased investor protection, and I defy Ministers to produce one. On top of that, we now hear that the US Congress, no less, through a congressional sub-committee, is visiting London to express its worries about the ability of the DTI to police the Lloyd's insurance market.
So we refer next to the burdens on business. The next objective says:
"We work within Government to create a climate that reduces red tape."
British and Commonwealth collapsed last week, and no fewer than six regulatory authorities were involved, all of them of course playing pass-the-parcel. The accountants have been regulated, the banks have been regulated, the building societies have been regulated and companies have been regulated; everything that moves has been regulated. This has been the most regulatory government of all time. The burdens on business have been multiplied one hundredfold. Reduce red tape indeed! That is rubbish, is it not?
I do not want to continue with this sad story and burden your Lordships too much. It would take me too long. But I have traced through every single objective in the 1988 White Paper, and against each and every one there is a record of failure. On research and development the DTI's own innovation advisory board now says that R&D spending in most of British industry grew by almost nil in the period 1985 to 1988 and that the situation was most serious and alarming. Awareness of 1992 is negligible, by all responsible accounts. On inner cities, the National Audit Commission says that,
"Government support programmes are seen as a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasy."
It now looks as though responsibility for the inner cities has been handed over to the new deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. On encouraging management education there is nothing. Regional policy is a deliberate, and largely successful, effort to cut off central government aid. On export promotion, ECGD premiums have been put up. The Enterprise Initiative has resulted in a paltry 3·1 per cent. take-up rate for subsidised consultancies. In other words, it is a dead duck.
So what is the case that Ministers have to answer? It is twofold. There is what I would describe as the

307
minor case, that by their own standards, by the objectives which they set themselves in their own White Paper, their record has been not just bad, but bad almost beyond belief. Not a single one of those objectives has been met, and some of them have not even been aimed at. It is—after all the years when we have been told how successful the whole thing was—one long, sad litany of failure. The Department for Enterprise has been a flop.
But it is not just a matter of failure. We must admit that we all fail from time to time, although not perhaps with the consistency that Ministers have achieved. It is not just a matter of ministerial bungling, although it has been bungling at times on a heroic scale. It is not even a matter of abject surrender to special interests, however disreputable that has been. Above all—and I regret having to say this, but I must—it is that there has been an unacceptable degree of ministerial deviousness and deceit. That is the case against Ministers, and that is the case that they must answer.
But, we are now told, all that is in the past. The current Secretary of State was quite clear on the matter when he gave evidence to the Select Committee of another place. "All that evidence", he said, "relates to the past. I am talking about my stewardship of the DTI." It is even said that when he walked into his new job at 1 Victoria Street he asked, "What is this place for?" That may well be so, but the Government are the Government, and Ministers have to accept responsibility for the actions of their predecessors. We have to ask ourselves what has changed; and here we are in some difficulty. There has been no new White Paper to supersede that of January 1988. There has been no new definition of role—just Whitehall tittle-tattle. Until the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—who I am glad to see will follow me—tells us what the new role is, if indeed there is one, we are all in the dark.
The rumours are rife. The Enterprise Initiative is for the chop. The estimates for current year expenditure on these subsidised consultancies show a drop of nearly a fifth against last year. Activities are to be hived off into—executive agencies, under the Government programme with the rather odd title of the Next Steps. ECGD is to be pushed out—not just short-term credit insurance but political risk and long-term cover as well. The National Engineering Laboratories too will go.
So, there it is, my Lords. Failing other information, this is way that the betting goes. The department is to be taken apart. The new crew arrives on the bridge. The new objective of the new crew is nothing more nor less than to dismantle the ship.
What happens next? The routine has been well-rehearsed. We know what will happen. What will the officers do, once they have stripped the ship right down to the point where it has become absolutely useless? We all know what they will do. The will lower the last remaining lifeboat, jump into it and row off to the next department. That is what the officers will do.
With all the chopping and changing that has taken place, it is no surprise and sad that morale is low and inefficiency has set in. We really must change
308
that and put the DTI back where it properly belongs, as the centre piece of a strategy to bring our economy back from where it is at the moment, which is at the brink of disaster. That means a policy which actively promotes industry, sets out to solve our long-term inflation problem and acts directly on the balance of trade deficit. I truly wish that I had any confidence that this Government could achieve that. I have none whatsoever. It is surely time for a change. I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I rise, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Boardman for allowing me to intervene at this moment when my name did not appear in this place in the list of speakers. I believe that that was my fault and I apologise to your Lordships. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak again briefly towards the end of the debate to deal with points that may be raised that I do not have a chance to cover now.
I much appreciated the intervention of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls a few moments ago asking about the policies of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his noble colleagues. The noble Lord spoke for 20 minutes or thereabouts and I remain as ignorant now as I was before as to what the noble Lord would have in mind if ever he were to have responsibilties for those matters. I heard nothing on that, although I dare say that we should assume that we shall have the policies that we had the misfortune to be subjected to between 1974 and 1979 and which we had the misfortune to inherit when we came to office at that time.
However, I do not wish to descend too far down the scale of political invective. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has once again provided the occasion for a debate on the prospects for British industry and the proper role of Government in enhancing those prospects.
The noble Lord has previously suggested that such debates are part of a continuing argument that will over time grow sharper. I regret that that may well be the case; unless, that is, the achievements of British industry over the past decade are acknowledged. There must also be acknowledgement of the important contribution made by this Government—not least my own department—in preparing the climate for these continuing successes.
The noble Lord was quite right to suggest that my department has an interest—second to none—in the United Kingdom's industrial recovery. More than that, he is right that the DTI has a role in that recovery—though we disagree about the nature of the role. Where the noble Lord went wrong, if I may say so, was in his reluctance to credit the recovery that we have already seen in British industry after its dismal performance in the 'seventies.
Let us look, for example, at manufacturing industry. It is stronger today than at any time in the past. It is leaner, fitter and better able to face the challenges of the coming decade. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will listen because he is to wind up for the Opposition shortly. Output,

309
investment, productivity, profitability and exports all tell the same story. Noble Lords may have read with interest, as I did, the thoughtful and appreciative review of these achievements in last week's Sunday Times; a newspaper not always sympathetic to the Government's case.
The productivity performance of manufacturing industry was transformed during the 1980s. In the 1960s and 1970s we were bottom of the league table for productivity growth. Since 1980 productivity in manufacturing has grown faster than in all other major industrialised countries, with output per head increasing by around 60 per cent. no less. That said, the legacy of our poor performance over most of the post-war period means that our levels of productivity are still lower than those of many of our competitors. Despite our impressive recent performance there is no room for complacency and much remains to be done.
The profitability of manufacturing has risen each year since 1981. In 1987—the latest year for which I have immediate figures—it was at its highest level since 1973 and four times the level of 1981. Healthy profits give companies the confidence to invest. That is borne out in the figures for investment which, like manufacturing output, stood at record levels in 1989. Investment rose by over 6 per cent. in that year and there was further growth in the first quarter of this year.
The volume of manufactured exports has increased by over 40 per cent. since 1980 and stands at record levels. Export growth in 1989 was the highest recorded since 1973. I recognise that even so there is concern among noble Lords that our overseas trade in manufactures shows a deficit. Let me say that the trade balance is only one indicator of manufacturing performance. Between 1987 and 1989, when the deficit in manufactures did indeed rise appreciably, manufacturing output rose by 12 per cent., investment by 19 per cent. and exports by some 18 per cent.
Those figures do not bear out any allegation of weakness in manufacturing or a general lack of competitiveness. As we have said before, the growth of the deficit was the consequence of the strength of domestic demand reflecting the boom in investment and the growth in consumer spending, both of which followed from increased confidence.
A period of slower growth in manufacturing and in the economy as a whole is now in prospect in response to the necessarily firm action that we have taken to control domestic demand and bear down on inflation.
Firm financial policies remain the only guarantee of lower inflation. That process cannot be painless, even though exports continue to be buoyant. It should, nevertheless, be seen in the context of the very real achievements of the past decade and the damage that would be caused by a resurgence of inflation. After a decade of rising profitability and productivity industry is far better able to handle the short-term difficulties before us and the longer-term opportunities to come.
310
I turn now to the question of promoting balance in the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has expressed concern on previous occasions about the size of the manufacturing sector which he sees as evidence of some fundamental imbalance requiring correction. It is true that the share of our total output accounted for by manufacturing declined for many years, although the share has been broadly stable since the early 1980s. But a falling share of manufactures has been common to all mature industrial economies.
There are two main reasons for that. First, as incomes rise people tend to spend a greater proportion of their incomes on the output of the service industries. Secondly, the scope for productivity improvements in manufacturing is almost always greater than the provision of services. Therefore, the price of goods tends to fall relative to the price of services. Since contributions to GDP are normally measured in value terms, that fall in the relative price of manufactures causes a fall in the manufacturing share of GDP even if the volume of manufactured output grows as fast as the volume of services output. Moreover, the boundary between manufacturing and services is often difficult to draw with any precision. For example, a manufacturing company contracting out its legal and accountancy services thereby enhances the size of the service sector.
As well as these factors which are common to all industrial economies, the UK has benefited from the discovery and exploitation of North Sea oil. The production of North Sea oil rose from nothing in the mid-1970s to some 6 per cent. of GDP in the mid-1980s. A rise in the share of the oil sector necessarily involves a decline in the share of other sectors.
Moreover, although it is important that manufacturing thrives and is profitable, we must not underestimate the contribution of other sectors—including the service industries—to our economic well being. Services now contribute more than twice as much to output and three times as much to employment as manufacturing. Furthermore, a pound of value added in services is worth just as much as a pound of value added in manufacturing.
Therefore, I do not believe that the share of manufacturing in total output is a cause for concern. What matters is the overall competitiveness of all sectors, including manufacturing. In a market economy the success of firms, industries and sectors is determined by the market and not by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, would like to imply that, because the Government believe in the operation of market forces, the DTI has been left without an adequate role to perform. But that is not so. Just as UK firms are in business to beat the competition, and our future prosperity depends on their continuing to do so, so the DTI is in business to help them to meet this objective. For 11 years the strategy of the Government has been consistent; it is to work with the grain of the market and not against it.

311
That strategy is based on a simple proposition: that it is for business, not Government, to stand in the market-place. It is for firms themselves to take the economic decisions on which their success depends. They know better than anybody that success in world markets can only be won by giving their customers the best value for money in goods and services. It is no part of my department's role to try to exercise that judgment on their behalf. The noble Lord has spoken of research and development and I shall deal with that at the end of the debate.
Across the whole range of my department's policies the focus is on markets, broadly defined, rather than on specific sectors. The action that it takes is aimed at long-term improvements to the supply side rather than short-term expedients targeted on individual sectors, industries or companies. It tackles underlying causes rather than symptoms.
There are two central elements to that strategy. The first is to establish a framework of open, competitive markets both at home and abroad because it is in these conditions that business will thrive. The second is to encourage individuals to develop their enterprise and their skills in business.
The noble Lord has made the claim that the Government have not lived up to their proclaimed intentions in the competition policy field. Let me, once again make clear those intentions. While the law must protect customers and competitors from unfair or anti-competitive behaviour, it should avoid also inhibiting legitimate commercial behaviour. So in mergers policy, for example, the Government's approach is that intervention in lawful commercial transactions should be kept to a minimum, since broadly speaking the free commercial decisions of private decision-makers in competitive markets result in the most desirable outcome for the economy as a whole.
It is our view that competition in free markets leads to an efficient, productive and flexible economy. In short, our approach is based on our view that competition is good for wealth creation. Any policy simply designed to make takeovers harder to carry out would have a damaging effect on efficiency by weakening the discipline of the market over incumbent managements.
At the same time as safeguarding competition at home, the Government continue to champion open markets abroad, and to press for the abolition of unfair trade barriers, notably in the current GATT round and in the single market programme.
I believe that the noble Lord referred to the current position as regards the Rover Group. I understand that Sir Leon Brittan has presented to his fellow commissioners his findings and recommendations on the sale of Rover Group. I gather that a Commission decision is likely on 20th June. A Statement will be made once the decision has been communicated to us and we have been able to study the full text.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the 1988 White Paper, DTI—Department for Enterprise. The Department had been set new objectives, firmly positioned within the Government's overall strategy
312
for creating a climate for growth and prosperity, and the White Paper showed how these were to be carried out.
It launched the enterprise initiative embracing all of the DTI schemes that offer advice, guidance, and practical help to British Companies. These include business development (or consultancy) initiatives, research programmes, regional assistance, help with exporting and advice on single market issues. In all these fields my department is working hard to ensure that British companies get the support they need.
The consultancy initiatives are a good example, if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will allow me to say so. The Government recognised that if small and medium-sized businesses were to increase their efficiency and competitiveness, we had to encourage them to use outside help to overcome strategic management weaknesses, and not just once or twice but as a regular part of their management strategy. The initiatives were therefore developed to give small and medium-sized businesses access to assisted consultancy in key areas of management skill. The areas are: marketing, design, quality management, manufacturing systems, business planning, and financial and information systems.
The noble Lord has suggested that we have failed to meet the objectives we set ourselves, but our record speaks for itself. Since its inception the consultancy initiatives have attracted over 51,000 applications. Some 36,000 projects have been commissioned, of which 16,500 have been completed. Nor is it simply a question of numbers. Over 80 per cent. of assisted firms are already implementing the recommendations arising from their consultancy projects, and a large majority judge the scheme to be good value for money. Just as important, over half the assisted firms intend to use full price consultancy in developing their business strategy in future. The reality is quite at variance with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have your Lordships believe.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, for the purposes of further debate in which regional policy will feature, I ask the noble Lord how many of the consultancies were taken up in the South East and how many in the regions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall do my best to give that information to the noble Lord when I reply to the debate.
The maintenance of open competitive markets and the encouragement of enterprise will remain our goals. We will continue to pursue these goals through effective partnership between the department and the business community.
When we run schemes for business we have to ensure that what we provide is clearly marketed, easy to understand and easy to use. It is equally important that there is direct contact between people in business and the people responsible for the policies which affect them. We have reorganised the department to facilitate this, providing a more flexible and adaptable organisation.
I am equally keen that the department should work in co-operation with business in the

313
implementation of policies. Private sector organisations, notably chambers of commerce and trade associations, already have a wealth of expertise and experience in providing business services to their members. With progress in the single European market, it is clear that our firms need the backing of strong, dynamic business organisations more than ever before. My department is already working closely with a number of these organisations, and I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities for co-operation that we will want to explore.
As well as benefiting business, this also benefits the consumer. The noble Lord has referred to my department's role in protecting consumer interests. I can assure your Lordships that the department remains committed to achieving a fair level of protection for the individual consumer and investor, and, by stamping out malepractice, to maintaining confidence in the working of markets.
The noble Lord referred particularly to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee report on company investigations. The Government have welcomed the report. It contains many detailed recommendations to which we are giving careful study before we make our considered response to the committee. Your Lordships should appreciate that the report is generally supportive of the present regulatory framework and of the changes introduced in recent years. It recognises that the number of completed inquiries continues to rise, and the time taken on major investigations has been substantially reduced.
I return to the noble Lord's Motion. The DTI has an active role to perform. It is performing it vigorously. It will go on doing so. The DTI's role is not for all that the role of a manipulator or juggler, keeping a balance between various sectors. That balance must be for the market to determine.
The past 10 years have seen an overwhelming improvement in the performance of British manufacturing industry. The credit goes to British enterprise, but the policies of this Government have made their contribution. The task goes on for business and Government alike. There will be intense competition and great challenges in the international markets of the 1990s not least because of the completion of the single European market in 1992. I remain convinced that British industry will be better able to meet those challenges if the policies of the present Government stay in place than if faced with a reversion to the tired nostrums of intervention still favoured by noble Lords opposite.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are indebed to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing this debate at the present time. Noble Lords opposite seem to be somewhat disturbed, but I was advised by the Whips' Office that I should speak next.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I accepted that the noble Lord should speak before me.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing this
314
debate at the present time because it is absolutely right that on such a vital matter as the prospects for our trade and industry we should come back to it recurrently, particularly at this time when we are beset with numerous difficulties.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, delivered some very vigorous and trenchant statements representing their points of view. I believe that they have initiated a debate in the full tradition of this House and those different points of view have been put clearly and with a degree of determination.
In my opinion there is little doubt that a number of the measures carried out in recent times by the Department of Trade and Industry were desirable. I find it desirable that it has concentrated on the concept of enterprise. I find it desirable that it has concentrated also on trying to prepare industry for the challenge of the single market and 1992. However, the real test of those endeavours has to be seen in the results achieved.
There is no doubt that in this country trade and industry provide our main sources of wealth. We are an established trading nation. In the old days we brought in raw materials, fashioned them, added value, exported them, and made a lot of money in the process. Our industrial and trading expertise went together. It is right therefore that we should examine where we stand in these related areas and consider the results that have been achieved through the endeavours of the DTI.
I will look at trade first. I was a member of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which reported to this House in 1985. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, was also a member and may refer to that in his remarks later. It was a matter of concern to me that the Government did not take that report more seriously. The report pointed out, at a crucial moment in the development of our overseas trade, that there were underlying trends which could lead us into a negative situation. It drew attention to the impact of the benefits that we were obtaining from oil. It pointed out that those benefits could not last for ever; that the oil revenues would diminish and that they masked underlying problems. It was in 1984 that we first began to run into a deficit on our manufacturing trade account. It could therefore be seen that if that trend continued it would have serious results.
When we spoke to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of the various departments we were told that the problem would correct itself; that there was no need to worry. For the moment we were receiving the benefit of the oil revenues and when those diminished, for whatever reason, the situation would be self-balancing. But it did not happen that way. Last year our deficit on manufacturing trade account was no less than £16 billion. I regret to say that the trend so far this year is little better.
We must ask whether there is a need for a more purposeful strategy in relation to our trade policies than the ones represented to the Select Committee in 1984 and 1985. We are gradually getting into a situation in which, unless there is a change of policy,

315
we could run into a permanent deficit. What is of more concern is that the invisible trade position which we were told at that time would act to correct the visible trade imbalance, towards the end of last year ran into deficit and so far this year is no more than balanced; it is showing no positive result.
At that time we pointed out—supported by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, who is chairman of the British Invisible Exports Council—that the invisible trade and the services were dependent on manufacturing output and performance. If the one fell the other would fall. It seems to me that that is demonstrated by what is happening.
Let me turn to consider our industrial performance. As your Lordships will recall, industry in Britain suffered a serious blow during the world recession of 1980–81 along with all other countries. As a result many firms were put out of business, substantial reductions were made in employment and major sectors of industry were diminished. As one might expect, that subsequently led to an improvement in productivity, because if you cut out the worst performance in any enterprise then the remainder will perform better. The Government emphasised the improvement in productivity but they failed to demonstrate that we continued to lag behind in industrial capacity.
The comparisons with other countries made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in pointing out that they too suffered a recession in their industrial output is correct. However, we found in our inquiry in 1985—it has since been confirmed—that the recovery in industrial capacity by our major competitors since that date has been greater than in our case. It is because we allowed manufacturing to fall behind that we have suffered to the extent that we have. With the unleashing of spending power on the one hand and the limitation in our manufacturing capacity on the other, it is not surprising that we have got into the difficulties we are now in over inflation, an adverse balance of payments and high interest rates.
I recall that during the detailed preparations we made for that report we paid visits to Germany, France and Japan to see how they did things. Germany and Japan are always taken as exceptional cases so I will look at the position in France, which is more comparable with us. When we went to see the trade ministry in France it told us that it had a clearly defined strategy for reviving industrial capacity. At that time France was in the same difficulties that we are now in: its balance of payments was weak and inflation was running at a high level.
The trade ministry said that it was determined to act in three areas in order to recover industrial capacity; to see that investment increased; to ensure that training improved and that research and development received all the money necessary to enable France to enter the new technology. It has kept to that policy.
We recognised the importance of those policies, but unfortunately have not kept to them as vigorously as other countries. We must ask ourselves whether there is a need now for a review of strategic
316
concepts. We know what is going wrong. The trouble is that it is not brought together sufficiently in the form of a broad strategy—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred towards the end of his speech.
Let us consider the position of small firms. The Government have helped small firms in many ways. However, I recently spoke to a small firm organisation and they are troubled by two things: first, that there is a confusing plethora of things being done ostensibly to help them, but which it is difficult for the small firms to find out about; secondly, those measures, support, advice and assistance are frequently being changed.
First, the small business organisations would like to see a one-stop arrangement to which the small firm can go and know exactly where it stands as opposed to having to hunt around. Secondly, what affects them much more than any advice that they might receive from government or other sources are the external factors of the economy. What hits them most of course are the high interest rates. The question then arises as to whether and how soon the Government expect interest rates to come down—a question to which we have referred repeatedly in this House in recent months. Alternatively, there is the question as to whether something special can be done for small firms. In other words, we should be looking at the strategic approach to the problems rather than using the tactical approach, which it seems to me has been the way in which the Government have pursued these matters.
I do not believe those issues are a matter for party politics. They are a matter of national importance. We have to get our balance of payments right. We have to increase our industrial, particularly manfuacturing capacity. I believe that there would be an enormous amount of support for a clearly defined strategy to bring these things about and put at the head of the list of priorities the need to get the overriding features of the economy correct, such as interest rates; the need to get a stable currency; the need to stimulate industrial investment which, while it went up substantially last year and in the first quarter of this year has slumped since; and the need to make sure that we give the right priority to research and development and to training. I know that my noble friend Lady Seear will, among other things, be referring to that aspect later.
Therefore, my summary on the whole position of the role of the DTI in these matters is that I believe that it has done certain things in the right way, but that what is lacking is an overall strategy which can make clear to us what actions the Government intend to take in order to deal with those two overriding problems that we face both in trade and industry; namely, the massive trade deficit, which shows no sign for the moment of improving, and the deficiency in our industrial capacity.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because, as he reminded your Lordships, he and I sat together on the committee in 1984–5. I hope to refer to that later in my remarks.

317
However, my conclusions differ to some extent from those of the noble Lord.
Some months ago I introduced to your Lordships a debate on economic affairs. I remember on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to me as being over-political and introducing political overtones. I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not immune from that comment himself today. There is one remarkable difference. In the debate I opened I referred—indeed, in political terms—to how the Government have behaved and to government policies. I also referred—though somewhat more critically, of course—to the policies of the Labour Opposition and its plans if it became a government. Today the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has criticised the Conservative Administration but has maintained complete silence about what a Labour Administration would do in office.
I do not seek to defend the DTI. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has done that most ably. Nor do I seek to defend any other government department. In fact, I have some criticisms to make. Many years ago I was a Minister in that department. Inevitably, the department has a great deal of bureaucracy and I criticise it for that. Inevitably, the department has a habit of making a number of mistakes, some of which have been quite serious. Somewhere in the chain when the department makes mistakes it tends to try to cover them up, but almost always that is discovered and comes under public scrutiny with disastrous results for the department.
Having said that, I believe that without doubt we have by far and away the best Civil Service in the world. We have men and women of integrity and ability. It is a pity that we do not praise them nearly enough. We should be proud of them. Of course mistakes have been made and of course there is bureaucracy but, my goodness, we depend on our Civil Service and it serves us well.
Civil servants within the department have a difficult time. They are subject to a political remit which at times can be irksome and difficult. That has come from both Labour and Conservative Administrations. In a way they are required to act like businessmen but they are subject to all sorts of restraints and controls which businessmen do not normally have to endure. They are subject to Public Accounts Committee examination of single transactions, to Parliamentary Questions, and so on. Those of us who have served our time in business must be glad that every transaction we have conducted has not necessarily had to go under such scrutiny to ensure that we have not made a mistake somewhere in our dealings.
I make no protest. I believe that it is right that public servants should be subject to scrutiny, but we should take that into account before we criticise them too severely, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, tended to do this afternoon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Nowhere in my speech did I make any criticism of officials. My comments were directed to Ministers.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I do not agree. The noble Lord did not specifically do so but he cannot criticise the whole department, as he did, without inflicting criticism on those who carry out policies. Of course his criticisms were in the main directed at ministerial control, but it is difficult not to say that part of that criticism must pass on to officials who have been responsible for monopolies and mergers and many of the matters to which he referred. However, I note the noble Lord's assurance that he was not criticising officials, which I welcome.
The noble Lord did criticise a number of actions of the department itself. I believe that the department should be judged on its overall performance and not on specific transactions, some of which have indeed gone wrong. Some of the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, do not stand up to scrutiny. He referred to Rover as a case for criticism. I shall not attempt to run through the facts of that transaction but it would be fair to put on record—I am sure it is in many places already—that the company was continually running at a loss in the public sector but is now a very profitable business in the private sector, making very good cars. That is an achievement of the DTI of which we should be proud.
It could be said that the Government could have charged a few million pounds more. With hindsight that can nearly always be said. In every transaction with which I have been concerned almost inevitably one side says, after the event, that it sold for too little or that it paid too much. That has happened in the case of Rover. However, for the future we have a successful, profitable, private sector car manufacturing company and I am delighted with that achievement.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not make much reference, if any, to what he would do if given the authority to do so, but it is clear from the Labour Party document, Meet the Challenge, Make the Change—if I have the title right—that a Labour Government would give considerably more power and authority to the various departments which were criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. There are proposals in that document for renationalisation of elements of British industry, for power to be given specifically to the DTI to make strategic interventions in key sectors of the economy; the establishment of a British investment bank; British Technology Enterprise is to be empowered to take shares in existing companies, and so on. That will be giving considerable powers to Whitehall whereas the policy of the present Administration has been to pass those back to the private sector. Anyone who believes that the policy of putting more into the department is the right policy should hark back to see what can be learnt from the history of recent years. Indeed, one need only look at Eastern Europe to see the economic chaos that has been caused by following extreme methods of socialism, some of which have similar features to those proposed in Meet the Challenge, Make the Change.
It is generally recognised in the light of experience that no commercial strategy can replace the free market as a means of determining production and meeting consumer demand. The Motion refers to

319
"promoting industrial recovery". As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded the House, I was a member of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade which sat five years ago in 1984–85. We made some fairly severe criticisms of the rundown of our manufacturing base. Indeed we predicted with perhaps some accuracy the impact that that would have on the balance of trade. Today I find the position much more encouraging. Many of the things we said at that time we hoped were being done, or should be done, and which we were told were being done and which are now seen to have been in the course of being done at that time, have taken effect. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, we have achieved many of those targets that we said at the Select Committee on Overseas Trade were necessary to achieve.
Productivity has increased by over 50 per cent. in the past few years. Our share of world trade is increasing. We have a higher growth rate than any other country in the EC. There has been a great increase in the number of new businesses created. In 1988 about 1,200 new businesses a week were being created. I believe that that number is now considerably more.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred specifically to British Steel. He picked a bad example. I remind the noble Lord that in 1978–79, British Steel took 14·3 man hours to manufacture a tonne of liquid steel. Today it takes 4·5 man hours to do the same task. I also remind him that in 1979 British Steel lost £1·75 billion (£1,750 million) and this year they have made over £700 million of profit. That is a change made under this Administration. We are the third largest aerospace producers in the world, after the United States of America and Russia. We have exports of about £7 billion. One might say that they are high-tech industries, as indeed they are. We are lucky to have many talents.
Turning to industries which are less high-tech, in textiles, with world-wide competition in this country we are now employing half-a-million people. There are about 1,500 firms exporting goods to the value of about £4 million. That is a great achievement. I could give many other instances.
One of the tests that one should apply about our level of efficiency and prospects is to see ourselves as others see us. We should look to see what other countries think of the prospects of this country by investing in it. Here there are remarkable stories of success. Bosch, which is a tremendously respected West German car component firm, has a £100 million factory in South Wales employing 1,200 people. The semi-conductor firm Fujitsu of Japan has a £200 million factory in County Durham providing 2,000 jobs. We know about the great success of Toyota and of its plant in Derby. Those are examples of how other countries see us. People come from vastly competitive and efficient industries themselves and look at this country. They say that, under this Administration, this is the place where they should put their money and provide a base for not only supplying the United Kingdom market but for exporting overseas.
One must give credit to the DTI for securing that additional investment in this country. That
320
department deserves credit because the work done by it has been of enormous value in securing investment. So has the work of the local authorities who have gone to great lengths in their particular areas to attract industry. Above all, this inward investment represents a dramatic change in the attitude of the British people over the past 10 years. That change has led to the welcoming of investment from overseas, and people from overseas believe that this is the country where they should be.
I have referred to manufacturing industry. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne said that in the switch to service industries it is a very difficult to define where the difference lies between elements of manufacturing and services. Again, there is here an enormous success record. Overseas earnings from financial services in particular are half the value of the exported manufactured goods.
When the noble Lord, Lord Williams, next draws the attention of the Leader of his party to the economic performance of this country, he should ask him to rethink the phrase that he used many years ago, it is true, when talking about the City. The Leader of the Party said that they were people who were "an army of brokers, jobbers and quaintly-named parasites". Those "quaintly-named parasites" are doing a very effective job for the economy of this country.
It would be wrong to be complacent about the future and I certainly am not. There are very severe economic problems both at home and overseas which have to be faced. In squeezing inflation out of the system the time-lag is very long. Only now are we beginning to see the results of that. The side-effects of that squeeze are very painful. I am worried that many businesses without substantial cash resources may not be able to bear that pain for very much longer. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of that. I certainly have every confidence in Her Majesty's Government, including the Department of Trade and Industry, keeping a proper balance in the economy in the future.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams on the impressive way in which he made out an indictment against the Government, an indictment which has gone unanswered by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. My noble friend adverted to what was perhaps a chance remark made by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he entered that department first of all. He asked: "What is this place for?" I suspect that he might have asked a similar question, judging by his record, when he entered the Department of the Environment. Clearly, it was necessary that he should be transferred to another department after his record there.
When the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Boardman, entered into their defence of the Government's record, they seemed to be unduly impressed by the erstwhile Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was allegedly unassailable at one time, and who had constantly spoken of an economic

321
miracle. However, they appear to have forgotten some of the speeches made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the re-writing of history which has been recently undertaken by the Conservative Party about that so-called economic miracle.
I do not want to concentrate on the generality of trade matters affecting the Department of Trade and Industry, but rather to confine my remarks to the regulatory functions of the department and to the massive and unprecedented criticisms that have been made against the Department by Mr. Kenneth Warren and the Trade and Industry Committee of the House of Commons. In a very pertinent sentence the report states:
"Laws and rules that are not for one reason or another in force bring the system into disrepute".
That statement goes to the very heart of the purpose of regulation and the need for it to be effective. As regards the reputation of the City both at home and abroad, it is critical that we should have an effective system of regulation. Yet there appears to be a major difference of view between the committee and the Secretary of State concerning the circumstances in which regulation needs to be invoked and sanctions applied. I refer in particular to paragraph 13 of the report where it states that the DTI told the committee:
"The object of the Companies Act investigation is to find out in the first place what is going on".
That is perfectly true. The report continues:
"We consider that the over-riding aim of such activity must be to protect investors (and other companies or individuals with whom the company in question may do business), promote efficient and honest markets and to maintain the integrity of the UK as a financial and business centre."
On publication of the House of Fraser report, the Secretary of State said:
"The purpose of company law and inspections of the sort we are discussing is to protect the interests of the shareholders".
In my submission that is not an entirely correct view of the purpose of inspections. He went on to conclude that it was not in the public interest to disqualify those particular directors. There is a need for a certain degree of clarity concerning the case for disqualification. That vitally affects the reputation of our country for dealing effectively with aberrant behaviour by companies.
Let us examine for a moment the cross-examination of the Secretary of State during the course of his evidence to the Select Committee as set out in the Observer of 27th May 1990. It was as follows:
"Q 'But do you think it is in the public interest that these people should not be disqualified from being company directors?'
Ridley: 'I never said anything of the sort'.
Q: 'You said that in the House'.
Ridley: 'I did not say anything of the sort'.
Q: 'If I may remind you, Secretary of State, you said in column 873 of the Official Report: "I have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to do so"—to apply to the courts for these people to be disqualified'.
Ridley: 'Yes, that is the point'.
Q: 'You decided it was not in the public interest'.
Ridley: 'I did not decide it was not in the public interest to disqualify them. I said it was not in the public interest to apply to the court'.
322
Q: 'But they cannot be disqualified until you apply, can they?'.
Ridley: 'As I have said, I am not going to give reasons' ".
That was hardly doing the committee justice; but more importantly, clarity is required when it comes to government policy on a matter as important as that. Such clarity was certainly not present on that occasion.
The question as to whether our system is capable of coping with the problems of commercial malpractice is highly pertinent to what we are debating today. In order to answer that question it would have been helpful to hear from the Department of Trade and Industry about the scale of commercial malpractice. Unfortunately, it was unable to help at all. It said that it had no reliable figures although—this is an interesting point—it considered fraud to be a growth industry. I believe that the department was right about that, particularly with the ramifications of international trade. We therefore need to be assured that we have a system in place which is capable of dealing quickly and effectively with commercial malpractice.
In his evidence the Secretary of State said that insider dealing cases were on the decline. There was not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate that proposition nor has there been any evidence forthcoming since he gave that evidence. But perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will give the House the benefit of any evidence he now has in support of that, I would suggest, absurd proposition.
There is little doubt that our system of regulation—part statutory, part self-regulatory—has become extraordinarily complex and remarkably ineffective. That has been evidenced by the major criticisms contained in the House of Commons report in relation to a number of cases. In the House of Fraser case the Select Committee stated:
"The Department of Trade and Industry does not have the resources to undertake extensive original investigatory work itself".
That is a very serious matter indeed.
The Barlow Clowes case, according to the Select Committee, indicates a failure to monitor in a systematic way the press coverage of commercial wrong-doing and a failure to respond to specific warnings. When I was a junior Minister at the Department of Trade, as it then was, from 1974 to 1979, I remember that I seemed to read rather more newspapers including Private Eye, than some of my officials—newspapers which revealed some prima facie evidence of aberrant behaviour which I would then draw to the attention of civil servants from time to time. The Slater Walker case was one in point and, indeed, there were others. I gave instructions that in future Private Eye should be scanned somewhat more carefully. It is important that the Select Committee's recommendation should be taken very seriously. I also believe that auditors should be statutorily permitted to disclose confidential information to the supervising authorities, as was strongly recommended in the report.
The complexity of our machinery for investigation is utterly remarkable. We have no fewer than 11 different authorities with responsibilities for

323
investigatory or regulatory work. Often several of these may be involved at any one time. Major questions about the efficiency of such a system must be: is there sufficient communication between these authorities; is there confusion about who has responsibility in particular cases; is there confusion about the procedures deployed; is there a likelihood of commercial malpractice slipping through the net as a result of this web of different authorities? Those are serious questions and I invite the Minister to comment on them when he replies to the debate. My view is that overall it is not an effective system.
The idea of a British-style Securities and Exchange Commission has been canvassed. The Select Committee said that that may be a matter for the future but it seriously canvassed the proposition. Thirteen years ago, as a junior Minister, I circulated to my colleagues a memorandum following a visit I made to the United States of America and Canada. My strong conclusion then was that we needed something of that kind. We now need it even more urgently.
I remember going to see the Queen's Counsel who presided over the Ontario Securities Commission. He gave sage advice when he said: "When it's all about a lot of money—gaining it, or losing it—don't rely on self-regulation. It doesn't work". I believe that he was right. In the United States, significant duties are laid down on corporations and their officers which are much more specific than those in this country. The powers and the role of the investigating authorities are better and more clearly defined. Civil litigation buttresses criminal prosecutions and the deterrents against abuse are more real and more effective than they are in this country. That is in the citadel of the free market where dependence on voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation is largely eschewed in favour of tight regulation. It is done because it is thought to be better for business—better for the reputation of business and for the financial centres in which those businesses operate.
Of course the-Department of Trade and Industry would argue that our excessively complex system is relatively new and needs time to settle down. But I believe that the recent cases illustrated in the Select Committee report demonstrate the need for urgency. In paragraph 113, the Select Committee stated about the House of Fraser case:
"We were surprised that the Secretary of State…when making a statement in the House on the House of Fraser inquiry appeared to leave action against the merchant bank and the solicitors entirely to the relevant regulatory bodies (the Bank of England and the Law Society)".
In paragraph 114 it stated:
"In our view, the DTI must remain responsible, in the public interest, for ensuring that some appropriate action is taken by the regulatory bodies".
In paragraph 115 it stated:
"We are not satisfied that civil sanctions are used sufficiently in enforcement of company law".
The committee was also deeply concerned about the grave delay that occurred.
I want to make one comment, parenthetically, about Lonrho. I may say that its position has been
324
vindicated, but its attitude to publication in the House of Fraser case was in marked contrast to its attitude to the publication of the Lonrho report in 1977. Then Lonrho sought to use every and any means to frustrate publication, including threats against the inspectors themselves. Be that as it may, the situation is now such that its attitude in the House of Fraser case has been vindicated.
In the case referred to in the committee report the department has behaved like the three monkeys. It is the department that would not see, would not hear, and has refused to speak. It has not emerged satisfactorily from the withering criticisms made by the committee. The department is called upon to make a full reply and to do so quickly.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I wish to focus entirely on the DTI's responsibility to encourage research and development and to create a climate in which it can flourish. Before I go any further, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that any criticisms I make apply entirely to Ministers who are responsible for policy and not to their officials. I am sure that I speak for all speakers on this side of the House when I say that.
In the 1988 White Paper on the role of the DTI some emphasis is placed on the importance of promoting innovation in industry, above all through the development and use of new technologies. Chapter 8 of the report makes the usual ritual remarks about the importance of the market-place. Is there any government publication these days without such references? The report goes on to admit:
"Reliance on the decisions of firms may produce a level of innovation and use of technology which fails to provide the maximum benefits for the economy as a whole".
In other words, we cannot leave everything to the market, although the present Secretary of State may have some difficulty in accepting his predecessor's concession on that point. This afternoon the Minister also appeared to have some difficulty with that concession.
The White Paper rightly recognises the need to increase research and development funding by the Government. It recognises that they must support and encourage the commercial application of new inventions; they must help small firms to innovate; and they must foster collaboration between industry and the academic world through collaborative research.
We can endorse all those claims. The problem is that the DTI's record in making progress in achieving any of them is a miserable one. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, there is a recognition of the issues but little action is taken to address them. Overall expenditure on R&D in the United Kingdom now compares unfavourably with that of most of our major competitors. In recent years the United Kingdom has been unique among OECD countries in that its R&D spending has risen less quickly than others, and yet it is widely recognised that spending in that area is a vital element in economic growth. In most countries the fastest growing industries are those which are the most R&D-intensive with the highest ratio of R&D spent to output.

325
I shall turn from total expenditure to private sector expenditure. Per capita spending on R&D is now at half the level of that of the USA, Japan, and West Germany. The failure of much of British manufacturing industry is at least in part due to its poor level of investment in R&D. Another indicator of those low levels of investment is the number of personnel employed to carry out R&D. Of the major industrial countries, including Japan, West Germany, France and Italy, only in the United Kingdom has R&D staff fallen.
Government investment in R&D has also fallen. After rising sharply after 1979—a point I concede—it has fallen back considerably since the early 1980s. As a percentage of GDP, it fell from 1·41 per cent. in 1981 to 1·03 per cent. in 1989. That can only contribute to a rapid slide towards becoming a low-technology country. That is a disastrous prospect for the nation and we must take urgent action to ensure that it does not happen.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to ask her a question. Do her figures include the defence element of national research and development?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I understand it, the figures relate to civil research. Research and development spending by the Government is also fundamentally flawed in the way that it is distributed. First, spending on defence is far too high in relation to civil research. The United Kingdom spends over £2 billion a year on defence R&D. Attempts to switch some of that spending to civil R&D and to improve the civil spin-off have been singularly unsuccessful.
Dramatic changes in the wider European political and security environment now make it even more imperative to switch defence R&D spending to civil R&D. Among the advanced economies, only the USA spends more on military R&D. Moreover, as a recent Select Committee report of your Lordships' House has made clear, the Government have exaggerated their overall spending on R&D by bringing in all kinds of spending by the MoD which is not really R&D spending. The misleading use of statistics by the Government is one of the most disgraceful developments of the past decade, and that is yet another example of it.
The second flaw in the distribution of government R&D spending is its heavy concentration on a small number of sectors. Aerospace, electrical engineering and chemicals receive 85 per cent. of public funds. Why? Why does the DTI put so much emphasis on those sectors when they account for only 27 per cent. of exports? Why also does the DTI concentrate so much support on a small number of companies? In fact, 90 per cent. of government support goes to approximately 100 companies. Yet, as the White Paper rightly implied, many smaller firms also need to innovate and to export innovations successfully in commercial terms.
The White Paper objectives that I mentioned earlier are not being achieved for a variety of reasons. First, civil research is being crowded out by military
326
research which absorbs far too high a proportion of highly qualified manpower and other resources. Secondly, DTI Ministers have failed to take sufficient action to encourage more private sector spending. It is Labour Party policy to encourage more private sector spending and not merely to increase public sector spending.
New guidelines requiring companies to include information on R&D expenditure in their annual accounts are welcome. However, it would be highly desirable—perhaps the Minister will agree with me—if the department were to publish regular statistics on the performance of the major companies in that respect in order to encourage the practice.
Reluctance on the part of the DTI to reduce the threat of hostile takeovers—a reluctance confirmed by the Minister this afternoon, using rather crude arguments about competition—is another problem. The DTI's own innovation advisory board is, according to newspaper accounts, worried that high dividend payments and constant attention to share prices are a result of fears about takeovers. Dividends are increasing faster than profits. There is concern that high dividends are undermining research and development. Research is regarded as expendable in that situation. It is often the first thing to go.
Yet another example is the failure to provide enough support for development and diffusion. In the past couple of years there has been a reduction in support for what is known as near market research. That discriminates against small firms which cannot afford basic research. Moreover spending on technology transfer by the Government is minuscule. According to the CBI, companies are also frustrated by the difficulty of getting anything out of the department under the limited existing schemes.
The third reason why the DTI fails to meet its objectives in relation to innovation is failures in science policy. The collaboration that the department wants in relation to the academic world will not take place if we cannot recruit and maintain sufficient numbers of high quality scientists in our academic institutions. Many scientists working in our universities are utterly demoralised and disillusioned. They see little sign of the resources needed to support the collaboration that they are supposed to have with industry. Firms are understandably reluctant to supply the basic equipment, some of it expensive, needed in a well-found laboratory. This must come from the public sector. I know from my own experience in the university world that many scientists and engineers are being forced to make do with obsolete equipment, insufficient consumables and not enough technicians to support their work. Many are emigrating to North America, Europe and elsewhere.
It is also becoming harder to recruit research students in certain scientific fields. They are lured away into accountancy and other more lucrative careers. However, it is the squalid and tatty working environment, without adequate equipment necessary to do good work, that puts people off rather than poor pay, although that hardly helps. By the way, the pay of academics has fallen more in real

327
terms over the past decade than that of any other group of public sector employees.
There are other failures in science policy, including a tendency still to spend too much on big science, leaving less available for some areas which are likely to be more productive. The DTI has not managed to produce an adequate strategy in collaboration with the DES on science policy. Looming ahead there are serious supply side problems relating to our pathetic failure to recruit enough science teachers for our schools, for which of course education Ministers must take the main blame. If we do not solve this problem, our failure to compete adequately with other advanced industrial countries with respect to R&D will become even more acute.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked what the Labour Party's policies were. Its policies entail dealing with each of the failures that I have identified to reverse the UK's relative decline in spending in this area. I should be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the relevant paragraphs from the latest Labour Party policy review.
I should have liked to be more positive and more optimistic about the role the DTI is playing in promoting industrial recovery. With respect to the crucial area of research and development, regrettably it is falling far short of what is needed to secure that recovery.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I propose this afternoon to say something about regional policy, which is within the remit and responsibility of the DTI. Before doing so I should like an answer to one or two specific points and I am sure that the Minister will give me the necessary reply in due course.
The first point refers to the Kemp report on export credits. I am reminded by major British exporters, and particularly by people from John Brown Engineering, who have just returned from the Soviet Union with a substantial order, that they are much concerned by the Government's attempt to reduce their commitment to export credits. This may put British exporters at a serious disadvantage. They wish to ensure that the combination of premium increases and market capacity restrictions should not be so severe that UK exporters will be put at a disadvantage. I should welcome the Minister's assurance in that regard.
I also wish to raise the matter of Ravenscraig, since it is close to where I live and is of concern to Scots. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will be more specific but perhaps I may give one quotation from the DTI White Paper which initiated the Department of Enterprise. Talking about open markets, to which it is committed, it said,
"Open markets do not mean Governments should rely simply on the operation of market forces or stand by as a passive observer of the economy".
I suggest that this gives the Government authority to intervene which is not being recognised in the case of the closure of the Ravenscraig mill. My noble friend Lord Macaulay will pursue this in greater detail.
328
I was delighted to hear the references by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the decline in expenditure on R&D. I am a member of a committee on science and technology which is meeting at this moment upstairs. We have received evidence from large numbers of successful British companies which suggest that the failure in the UK to innovate is because resources are not available to support research and development.
I wish to make one point concerning the City. I was involved in the City until I retired last year, in a company that was involved in the Guinness affair. I do not propose to pursue the matter at this stage, but it took the DTI three and half years to investigate the facts of the Guinness case. In the meantime the investigation caused considerable disruption in the operations of a merchant bank with members of the Serious Fraud Office and the DTI in the office simultaneously questioning everyone from directors to secretaries. Their activities affected the careers of people who were suspect during the three and half years of the investigation. I am sure that the Guinness affair will run for five years with the investigation plus the proceedings in the Crown Court.
Two leading members of the staff—the chief executive and the head of corporate finance—were invited to resign at the beginning of the investigations. Nothing was proved and they will not be charged but they were invited to resign before any investigation or charge.
I suggest therefore that, in any investigation undertaken by the DTI in future, there should be a speeding up of procedures to ensure that people who are innocent do not suffer and are not under a shadow and so that their careers are not affected by prolonged investigations. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on expediting DTI inquiries in future.
My main thrust this afternoon is directed towards regional policy. We have had several changes in that policy in the past five or six years. I suggest that we have been so much involved with the problems of the South East that we are inclined to overlook the total economic and social cost of neglecting the regions. The concentration of industry in the South East is inflationary and there is much evidence of that, not only in house prices but in other areas.
Perhaps I may quote one or two statistics. I must refer to Scotland although what I say is equally relevant to other neglected regions. Between 1982 and 1985 real investment fell by 5·4 per cent. in Scotland; in the United Kingdom it increased by 7·7 per cent. The North/South divide continues to exist. Last year 15,000 young people left Scotland and emigrated, most of them to the South East. This cannot be a happy situation for the universities and schools that produce clever young people who cannot find an outlet for their skills and talents in their native country.
I wish to speak a little about the social and economic costs of the North/South divide and its effect on the economy. British Rail's subsidy to the South East is £205 million per annum. Even with the inadequate services, that subsidy is 28 per cent.

329
of the entire national subsidy to British Rail. On top of that £205 million for British Rail, London Regional Transport receives a subsidy of £295 million to maintain some kind of public service in the South East. The London weighting addition for civil servants in the South-East costs another £150 million.
The Autumn Statement has indicated that on top of those figures a further £400 million or £500 million will be put into transport subsidies in the South East. There are 2,900,000 mortgagors in the South East. That is 36 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, but they receive more than 42 per cent. of the total national tax relief. The figures indicate the tremendous inflationary effect, as well as the effect on the quality of life of concentrating industry in the South-East and failing to pursue a reasonable regional policy.
The Government have changed their regional policy over the past five years. I commend to the Government a statement made on the last occasion by Sir Leon Brittan who had been Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry a short time previously. He said:
"The criticism that I make of the proposals in the present legislation is not that they retain a selective element, but that they move over to a totally selective concept, and that is a very different matter"—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/88: col. 63.]
Sir Leon went on to say that he was not persuaded that the regional policy of the Government, which was selective in its application of regional grants, would be effective.
That was not only said by Sir Leon Brittan; it was said also by the Scottish Development Agency and others who administer regional policy. It is time Ministers looked again at the whole question of the social and economic costs of this heavy concentration in the South-East. Socially it is bad and nationally it is unhealthy. We require effective regional policy incentives to relieve this situation.
The Government have changed their policy twice in the past five or six years. They have departed from the automatic regional development grants which were so effective in creating employment in the past. It is time the Government carried, out an audit on the effects of their policy. Sometimes they seem to be victims of their own advertising. They should be looking seriously at the impact of their changes in regional policy in terms of investment and employment. I strongly recommend that that should be done.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams on raising this subject for debate today. I admired the way in which he condemned Ministers for letting down the Department of Trade and Industry. When the Labour Government came into power in 1945 exports were two-thirds lower than the pre-war level. Huge debts had to be incurred to pay our way. No wonder Winston Churchill said the country was bankrupt.
After a short period as Dominions Under-Secretary of State I was appointed Secretary
330
for Overseas Trade. The President of the Board of Trade was my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, one of the board's most able presidents. Weekly meetings were held of officials and Ministers. My noble friend Lord Wilson had a photographic memory. He was able to provide information and helped to settle matters without any hesitation.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade was used by the Foreign Office to undertake special missions. Among other things I was actively concerned with the Anglo-Yugoslav trade agreement and trade arrangements with Finland. In the case of Yugoslavia the trade talks continued for 18 months. The Minister, Kopcok, confided to me that the Yugoslavs were falling out with the Soviet Union. I mentioned this to Ernest Bevin who was Foreign Secretary at the time. He told me not to be foolish as no diplomat had reported this state of affairs. However, by the time we had finished the negotiations the break with the Soviet Union had occurred. Ernest Bevin said that I should sign the trade agreement. However, the Foreign Office said that protocol demanded that the Foreign Secretary should sign the agreement. Ernest Bevin said he would overcome that by giving me special powers plenipotentiary so that I could sign the agreement. As noble Lords can imagine, I have kept that document.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was at the Foreign Office at that time. He was one of my expert advisers. He was a good adviser. In connection with some Finnish talks Ernest Bevin told me that the Communists had overrun Czechoslovakia. He told me that if I could find out anything about that matter from the Finns I should do so. I spoke to President Passokivi who just smiled and told me that Lenin had once said that the Finns were indigestible.
Under the auspices of the United Nations, a world trade conference was held in Havana in November 1947. The intention was to form an organ of the United Nations. Some of the Eastern European countries said they would attend. However, when the Russians did not attend, unfortunately none of the Eastern European countries attended. I led the British delegation. The senior delegate for the Commonwealth was Walter Nash, the New Zealand Prime Minister. We formed a good friendship which we kept until the time of his death.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade was responsible for the export and credit guarantees department. The Government would be failing in their duty if they did not give that department the support that it deserves to help out the export trade. My noble friend Lord Wilson played a prominent part in creating the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As is known, the intention of the agreement was to dispense with discrimination, to bring about the circumstances in which trade could flow easily and without hindrance, and to influence the administration of import and export duties and charges. GATT offers a framework within which negotiations are held for the reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and a structure for putting the results of such negotiations into a legal arrangement.
The British Institute of Management was set up in 1947. I have the privilege of being the president of the Westminster branch at this time. When I was Secretary for Overseas Trade, it was necessary to

331
do some really hard work. Most Eastern European countries and some Latin American countries were represented and led by Ministers. They insisted that a minister must negotiate with them. That meant burning the midnight oil. I recall on one occasion negotiating with Cuba. We were short of dollars and could not afford to buy their cigars. The Minister said to me: there are two things in this world which are in a class of their own—French champagne and Havana cigars. I told him that he showed appalling ignorance: had he never heard of Scotch whisky? We did business on the basis of trading whisky for cigars.
The Board of Trade was one of the busiest departments of government. It had the task of overseeing all matters relating to trade and industry. The Board of Trade played a prominent part in bringing about recovery after the war, saving the country from many of the ravages caused by that war. At that time it did more constructive work than under any other government. I have endeavoured to show that by what I have had to say.
In contrast, the present Conservative Government have failed miserably. The Government's handling of the economy has been disastrous. Britain has the worst inflation rate, the highest interest rates, the lowest growth and the largest trade deficit among European countries. The Department of Trade and Industry has shown a total unwillingness and inability to enforce proper regulation of the City of London. The trade and Industry Select Committee report on company investigations is a searing indictment of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministers who run it. They have failed to curb insider trading and City frauds. It must be clear to any sane, thinking person that it is time there was a change of government.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall not attempt to comment on the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley. I shall begin my remarks by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject this afternoon and to hear a number of fascinating speeches. In the course of his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made one or two flattering comments about the number of speakers from these Benches. I remind him that size is no guarantee of strength. He need only look at the Good Book that is not far from him and find the story—Goliath, nil; David, one—I am sorry; I did not intend to refer to my noble friend on the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will see that the four speakers from these Benches represent considerable experience in commerce and, particularly in the case of my noble friend Lord Boardman, of all the matters covered by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
I admired and enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Were I one of the Olympic skating judges we see every four years in the winter I might award him 5·8 for technical merit. I might even give him a full 6 for artistic impression, but for content I would give a lower mark because I do not necessarily agree with him. It was a very refreshing and remarkable speech.
332
The main thrust of my speech this afternoon will be to draw attention to the many ways in which the Department of Trade and Industry is able to fulfil the roles mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in terms of industrial recovery and proper balance in the economy, although I do not know what he meant by that. No doubt his noble friend Lord Peston will be able to enlighten us further.
One of the Department of Trade and Industry's current programmes is the LINK initiative which links the work of that department with that of the Department of Education and Science. The programme unifies the work of scientists—which was very well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—and the techniques of the market place. Noble Lords have only to cast their minds back 19 years to the Rolls-Royce affair. That company, which was a world leader in aerospace and aero-engine technology, suffered serious difficulties because of a grave lack of attention to one particular aspect of accountancy and finance. We see from that and other cases the need for the LINK initiative to co-ordinate the work of science and industry, finance, marketing, production and what is now called human resources but which I have always called personnel. The experts in those disciplines should understand the disciplines in which each of the other specialists has been brought up.
The second aspect of the work of the Department of Trade and Industry which has impressed me is the Enterprise Initiative. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned a figure of 3 per cent. uptake. Noble Lords will know that the scheme is targeted at smaller companies. One of the more interesting aspects of the Enterprise Initiative is that it is intended to encourage industry to employ outside consultants as part of management strategy. However, it is essential to use the ideas of consultants without necessarily taking everything that they say as gospel. I should not regard the maxim "consultants are best" as being in any way the truth.
I read on Sunday the article referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench. I gleaned from that lengthy and learned article that Germany and Japan are not ruled by masters of business administration (MBAs), to whom I raise my hat in respect. Those two countries are ruled by engineers and others with special skills. The same goes for Scotland—and I look across the Chamber at the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—which is ruled by engineers, and also by accountants and doctors. MBAs perhaps have some standing in that country. We need to use consultants and their relevant disciplines and experience with care, because the blind use of consultancy can lead to some of the interesting cases about which we read daily in our newspapers.
As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned earlier, the Enterprise Initiative is aimed at design, marketing, finance and manufacturing systems. In that respect the Department of Trade and Industry is fulfilling the terms of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Another aspect which I do not believe has been raised this afternoon as part of the main programme of the Department of Trade and Industry is the exellent slogan: "Europe: open for business in 1992".

333
That represents one of the greatest challenges in the lifetime of many of your Lordships. The programme was launched in April 1988. It has produced a high awareness of the single market, which is catching up on us. Action has to be taken.
There is one aspect of the question of Europe being open for business which has crossed my mind. How many of your Lordships would be able to make the remarks which any of us have made—or, perhaps, mercifully, have not made—this afternoon in other European languages—French, German, Italian, Spanish or other languages of the Community? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is raising one finger. I hope that he is raisin; only one finger, or perhaps two in a decent form which would be suitable for this House. I believe that raising one finger has connotations across, the Atlantic. I understand that the noble Lord speak; one or two European languages.
One of the complaints that we hear from the other members states of the Community is that few businessmen and businesswomen, not to mention Members of this House or of another place, have any idea of the necessary communication skills. That is the current jargon, although I prefer to call them languages. They are a necessary part of the programme.
I am reminded that my tutor at Oxford—my noble friend Lord Blake, who is not in his place at present—had to remind me all of 29 years ago that my priority was to write clear and concise English. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who is to follow me, made an indirect contribution to my education, thanks to a valuable tome on France—he will no doubt be voluble in French, although perhaps not in this House—which enabled me to obtain some kind of a degree.
Another of the main thrusts that is particularly germane to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is regional selective assistance. That is particularly relevant to Scotland. I shall not follow the noble Lord down the path of Ravenscraig this afternoon as time is limited and I have one or two more points that I wish to make. I go along with at least two or three of the points made by the noble Lord about the concentration of industry and commerce in the South-East. However, regional selective assistance has a useful role to fulfil in gaining new employment and, above all, in safeguarding existing employment. It encourages existing employment to be furthered and promoted in, for example, the field of technology, be it science or other skills.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to regional policy and to Scotland. He will know that between his dwelling place and mine is a great Scottish industrial city called Dundee. What has saddened me very much over the past three to four years has been the loss of the projected Ford factory in Dundee. That seems to me and to many of us in Dundee and Angus to be almost lunatic for two reasons. First, the reason why the investment was lost was no reflection on industrial relations in the United Kingdom. It was completely crazy and out of kilter. The whole scene of industrial relations has
334
moved on. We shall hear more about that aspect next week. Secondly, the Ford Motor Company is a first-class employer which has been extremely successful in the United Kingdom and is a particularly successful employer and major investor.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised another point, to which my noble friend Lord Boardman alluded, regarding investment by the Government in other forms of infrastructure. Before I came into the Chamber today, I was thinking of the journeys often made by noble Lords who live far from London. I place the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in that category. I was thinking of investment in railways. It appears that investment in British Rail over the next three years will be about £1.2 billion. However, £400 million of that investment is currently in respect of the east coast main line electrification. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may be aware of this, but I do not know whether other noble Lords are aware that the fastest journey between the station used by the noble Lord—the little station of Leuchars—and mine of Dundee further up, and London—a distance of about 714 kilometres according to the valuable Cook's Companion in the Library—is five and a half hours.
Noble Lords opposite and other critics of the Government's investment in the infrastructure often refer to the Federal Republic of Germany. Let us look at the core route in the Deutsche Bundesbahn; namely, that between Cologne and Basle. That is a distance of 520 kilometres which is roughly the same as the distance between London and Carlisle. The journey takes four hours and 40 minutes which is exactly the same time as the service, in which there is thought to be under-investment, between London and Glasgow. The investment and infrastructure provided by the Department of Trade and Industry therefore seems to form an acceptable base. I wish to compliment my noble friend and his department on all that they do.
Finally, I wish to support my noble friend in what I shall call his second coming in the department. He may remember that, when he first worked in the old Department of Trade, we shared the Bench dealing with sundry measures such as the Companies Act, when my noble friend's voice gave way as mine is about to do. We covered everything from Anton Piller orders to aviation and auditing. That was just the Department of Trade. When we consider how the Department of Trade and Industry seeks to unify the efforts of the entire industrial base and infrastructure of the nation and to meet the terms of the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, many of us on this side of the House at least will wish to present our compliments to our noble friend and his department and to everyone who works in it.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are today considering the role of a department which is undoubtedly seen by many as the black sheep in the Whitehall flock. It is not uncommon for departments to be unpopular with her Majesty's Opposition since they advise and execute government policies. It is not uncommon for the Treasury especially to be

335
unpopular with the Opposition and the Government alike, since it is the Treasury's role to say no to the most brilliant, and therefore usually the most expensive, ideas of all sides. But the unpopularity there is usually accompanied by respect.
It is the sad fate of the DTI at present to enjoy neither popularity nor respect on any side of either House, nor with the media and the public outside. It is not hard to understand how that sad situation has arisen, given the long history of policy misjudgments to which my noble friend Lord Williams referred in his powerful and convincing opening speech. The effect on officials in the department must be demoralising. For institutions, as with individuals, failure is bad. It erodes self-confidence and each failure tends to make the handling of the next crisis less sure.
It would be comforting if we could bury those past failures and look to the future with renewed confidence. I am not sure whether that is possible under the present direction, or even that parts of the Government want that. Part of the problem is that we have a department of industry, in which the Government, or certainly the Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State, appear not to believe. The musical chairs of six Secretaries of State in seven years—or is it seven in six years?—demonstrates the contempt with which the department is viewed. I ask noble Lords opposite: which major corporation could survive changes of chairman of that rapidity without being demoralised?
Mr. Ridley leaves no one in any doubt about the contempt with which he views the basic activities of his own department. The only historical analogy, or semi-analogy, that occurred to me was that of Mr. Tony Benn, Secretary of State of what was then just the Department of Industry. He was disdainful of his civil servants, as he has written, and believed that the department was ideologically unacceptable, being allegedly opposed to the then Government's basic interventionist ambitions.
Today Mr. Ridley is equally disdainful of his civil servants—indeed, of all civil servants. Ironically, he also believes that the Department is ideologically unacceptable, being allegedly a symbol of government intervention, which he despises. It is hard to see how the poor civil servants in Victoria Street can ever hope to win. It is no wonder if they are demoralised.
At least in 1975 the then Prime Minister, now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, had the courage and sense to sort out matters by moving Mr. Benn to a department where his talents could be used more positively. Mr. Ridley remains a danger to navigation. It appears that this series of administrative disasters gives pleasure to his own personal supporters because the department which they despise is brought into disrepute and because their cavalier Secretary of State so clearly does not care. We must care because the policy areas for which the DTI is responsible matter very much.
Despite the fanciful dreams of those who imagine that one day we shall have a world of total deregulation without any government intervention, the reality is that the DTI, however trimmed its
336
wings, should continue in business for many years to come. We want it to be successful in that business. A wide range of DTI activities are being discussed today and several noble Lords from all sides have contributions to make based on great experience. For myself, I shall confine my remarks to two areas: financial regulation and industrial policy.
Turning to the regulatory field, the DTI is primarily responsible for policing company law. That has been a continuing source of dissatisfaction, threatening to bring into disrepute the laws under it—a point that was made most impressively by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. In defence of the department it must be said that there exist genuine and possibly unavoidable tensions between the desire among many for speedy prosecution of the law and the basic need to establish convincing evidence and be fair to individuals. Having said that, there is widespread belief that in general the DTI has been simply too slow—too slow to appoint inspectors, too slow to publish conclusions and too reluctant to act upon its conclusions.
In relation to the publication of reports, in my view the DTI should publish its broad conclusions on an issue and clear the names of innocent parties involved as soon as possible, even if that means delaying publication of the final appendix recommending any criminal proceedings. The House of Fraser affair is relevant to that. It has been ploughed over often enough and I shall not spend too much further time on it. But it is incontestable that it has been very damaging to the reputation and morale of the department and it did not reflect well upon the conduct of more than one Secretary of State. Perhaps they were in an almost impossible situation but certainly they might have handled it better.
Equally certainly, the dishonest attitudes of certain company directors there exposed that either company law was inadequate or that the DTI was dilatory in exercising its responsibilities, or both. Directors must be compelled to tell inspectors the truth. Equally, inspectors must allow accused persons a right of reply.
I turn to another regulatory area—the need to protect investment clients. This is an area that concerns me professionally and I should declare an interest as the chief executive of a small investment management company—not quite a parasite, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. We spent many hours in Parliament on the Financial Services Bill, which I recall did not always excite the full interest and imagination of noble Lords. It was a tedious penance which was justified—or thought to be so—because it would apparently impose honesty on the City and guarantee protection to investors. I am not sure that subsequent experience justifies the long nights of suffering in this House. Indeed, repeated recent experiences demonstrate that the supervision of various London markets either directly by the DTI or through self-regulation bodies monitored by the DTI is hopelessly inadequate. I was very struck by a story in this morning's newspaper which asked what was the difference between the DTI, the Securities and Investments Board, the self-regulatory organisations

337
and an umbrella. The answer was that an umbrella usually protects somebody.
The long series of public scandals is well known. This House has discussed Barlow Clowes. The County Nat West/Blue Arrow affair is still awaiting full trial and I believe that the delay is an injustice to those who are accused. In recent days we have seen the collapse of Dunsdale Securities with the apparent disappearance of £20 million of investors' funds. The full facts of that latter scandal have yet to be established but we note that the key director was apparently licensed to trade by the DTI shortly after being involved in the London and Counties scandal, which ended in a collapse amid charges of fraud. Once again it seems that individual clients will be left with little hope of recovering all their money.
The problem in the regulatory areas is that we have imposed a huge superstructure of regulatory bureaucracy which costs honest firms (the vast majority) and their clients a fortune to sustain. The initial cost to the finance industry of implementing the Financial Services Act is estimated at over £1 billion and it costs over £150 million a year to operate.
I do not know whether any noble Lords have been subjected to one, but the self-regulatory bodies' books of rules are incomprehensible. That of FIMBRA, the body responsible for Dunsdale, is over 200 pages long. One of its rules was printed in the press this morning. Those who missed it should listen carefully when I read it out. It says:
"A member may provide services to a client notwithstanding there s no client agreement in effect with that client provided that a e client is not an existing client of the member".
Noble and learned Lords who are present may know what that means. I hope that none of them was responsible for drafting it. There are hundreds of pages of that kind of gobbledegook.
We have a mass of bureaucracy and it does not seem to protect clients' money. It burdens the honest but does not adequately deter or catch the wicked. This area of regulation is still unsatisfactory. It needs simplication and reform. I note that the self-regulatory bodies operating under the Securities and Investments Board have promised to simplify their rule books and are committed to do so. That is very desirable but they are already behind in their timetable of commitment to do it.
I have not mentioned the numerous scandals in the insurance market because it is not a market in which I have worked. It is clear that self-regulation at Lloyds has not been a success, as perhaps some noble Lords present know to their cost. At times one has been tempted to ask: who guards the guards at Lloyds? I wonder also whether the Minister read the independent report published only last week on the failure of the H.S. Weaver Underwriting Agencies, part of London United Investments, which collapsed in March—one of the biggest insurance failures in British history. That report concludes that the DTI is fatally short of expert staff to supervise the insurance industry and that its supervision of that market "is lax and complacent". That is the kind of expression that we have heard used elsewhere.
338
The final aspect of regulatory policy that I wish to mention concerns insider trading. Sadly, the DTI has a long track record of failure in dealing with insider trading since it became an offence in 1980. It has shown technical defects in drafting and implementing the law. It has been dilatory in pursuing investigations, sometimes taking six months to appoint inspectors.
The recent condemnation by the All-Party Commons Select Committee on Trade, to which reference has been made, was devastating. It is widely accepted in the City, where the view is that the chances of offenders being caught are remote. What is required is greater speed with regard to inquiry, decision and publication to clear the names of innocent parties.
Organisationally, the DTI has given indications that it wishes to hive off those regulatory responsibilities. That could produce improvements. A new statutory body along the lines of the SEC in America would streamline the present tangled lines of responsibility spread over the DTI, the Crown Prosecution Service, the regulatory bodies and the Stock Exchange. However, I say to my noble friends who are involved in policy making that we must beware of creating a legal bureaucratic monster. That would be as bad as the present position.
Above all, we need signs of motivation and commitment from the top. Ultimately success depends not just on the regulatory structure, but on the attitude that the department brings to its implementation of the regulations. In recent times that attitude has seemed to be infected by inertia and conspicuous cynicism. Instead of an action tray on the Secretary of State's desk, there appears to be just an ashtray.
I have taken some time on the regulatory side. I shall refrain from continuing on the area of basic industrial policy. However, I conclude by affirming that the Department of Trade and Industry has a very positive role to play in producing an industrial climate in which healthy firms and sectors can thrive. We must move towards a partnership between Government and industry, and to secure greater prosperity for all.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, apart from anything else the admirable and most timely report of the Select Committee of the other House on company investigations, which many speakers have mentioned today, justifies this debate. In fact it cries out for a debate, and for many other things including action from the Government.
When one has a boom on top of deregulation all round, and a laissez-faire Government, one usually has financial scandals. In recent years having attempted to imbue everyone with a spirit of get-rich-quick, dignified by the name of enterprise so beloved of the previous Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Young, this Government cannot escape some responsibility for all the rather murky escapades in the City.
The Government are always telling us—the Minister told us today—that it is their business to

339
provide the right climate for industry. We can now see what the climate is. They have nothing to be proud of. The trouble is that market forces in this climate do not always work very benevolently. I do not believe that one should blame the DTI officials. Indeed the report gives special praise to one of them. But there have not been enough of them. They cannot easily have had the experience necessary in the matter of company fraud. The report leaves no doubt of that.
In order to remedy all this there is no alternative to recruiting a major corps, part-time and full-time, as the report suggests, including lawyers, accountants, City traders with recent experience, and the monitoring and investigating authorities, to carry out that job.
The report suggests a number of details on how that is to be done which I wholly support. I need not enumerate them. However, I believe that the Government will be very much to blame unless they carry out a number of the proposals. I refer to particular judgments in the report. I wholly agree with its finding on the Al Fayed takeover of House of Fraser. It was very strange that the noble Lord, Lord Young—at that time the Secretary of State—did not refer that takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is also strange that the present Secretary of State decided not to ask the courts whether the Al Fayed brothers should be disqualified as directors after all the disclosures which had been made. It is also a little strange that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is not with us today to explain exactly what he was doing on that occasion, and why.
However, the present Government's belief apparently is that the DTI should do less and less. That view extends to many tasks other than preventing frauds and monopolies. Mr. Ridley, the present Secretary of State, seems to believe that there should not be a DTI. If he holds that view one wonders why he took on the job of Secretary of State. His only wish, like that of the Prime Minister, seems to be to cut down public spending at all costs.
The Minister today asked noble Lords on this side of the Chamber what we should do. He almost seemed to be asking us to suggest to him what he might do. I shall certainly make a few suggestions.
There are several crucial functions which in the modern world the DTI ought to be expanding and not contracting. In most of our main competitor countries the governments, far from leaving their industries—public or private—to their fate, put the whole of their financial, diplomatic, administrative and political sources behind them. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke rightly about France today. France would have had no nuclear industry, and very small aircraft, electricity, car, steel or shipbuilding industries, if they had not been deliberately planned and supported over a long period by the state. Japan would probably have had no car, steel, shipbuilding or electronic industries without such support.
The most crucial DTI function is export promotion. If we do nothing to limit imports—and we have given that up now—we might at least promote exports. There is a great deal that a modern
340
government can do, and our competitor governments are doing, to promote exports. The export drive was greatly strengthened during the 1960s in many ways, in particular by industrial exhibitions, fairs, special rates of interest for exporters, and other help in export markets.
But what is happening at the present time? I am at least pleased to hear that a British trade exhibition is now being held in Kiev. The Prime Minister apparently visited it. One might hope that exhibitions had escaped her cost-cutting kitchen knife but I should like to be assured that that is so. It is also reported in the press that Britain has rejected the valuable offer of being a partnership nation at the Hanover Fair in 1992, and that the French promptly stepped in to take our place. Is that true? If so, how was it allowed to happen?
There is the Universal Exposition at Seville in 1992. The DTI seems to have spent so much time cost-cutting that it has damaged our chance of an effective presence there. Is that also true?
There is a further report that spending on export market research is now to be cut. Since the Export Credit Guarantee Department has been mentioned today, will the Government also give a clear assurance that full support will be maintained for the ECGD. It was first established by a Conservative government in the 1920s and has probably proved our most successful single instrument for export promotion over many years. It has been imitated by almost every other country since and to my mind any cost cutting of that department would be the grossest folly.
In France, Japan, Italy and other countries the winning of major export contracts in civil engineering, power station equipment, aircraft and defence goods and so forth is no longer left to the competing firm. In those countries a team is formed, including representatives from the public service and the firm's managers, technical assistants and commercial staff overseas. In effect, it is instructed to win the contract. In my opinion, a major duty of the DTI should be to do something similar or at least to do something effective. It should foresee and track down such major contracts in good time and ensure that all the necessary services are on offer to the British firms competing. It should do so as a service to industry. A typical recent example is that of the noble Lord, Lord King, of British Airways. He complained that in a recent industrial contest every airline except his had government support.
In my view, the second main DTI function should be regional policy, already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Taylor. The case for a strong, vigorous regional policy is hard economics. To leave all our labour, capital and public services to stand idle at one end of the country, while in the South East allowing excessive pressure on resources resulting in high prices, housing shortages, scarcity of skilled labour and transport congestion if not deadlock, is sheer economic waste. In those cases, it is unfortunate that in general market forces work the wrong way. Each enterprise moves to where the biggest market appears to be present and so makes the situation worse for everyone else. It is rather like a traffic block.

341
As a result, rising prices and rents in the congested area force the Government to start a general economic squeeze, as they are now doing, while major resources remain unused elsewhere. Indeed, that is the cause of many of our present problems. Yet with a better geographical balance growth can be allowed to go further without the clamping of the anti-inflationary brake. Such a better balance would also avoid the ever-growing demand for new housing in the South East which is difficult to meet.
There are two ways of escaping that impasse which were used effectively during the first 20 years after the war in order to achieve a better geographical balance of industry. The first is to encourage new development in areas of unused resources. Practical experience has shown that the best way of doing that, in addition to regional grants, is for practical government agencies to develop industrial estates and business premises and the necessary services in the under-developed areas.
At Question Time on 21st May the Minister gave me an equivocal Answer about English Industrial Estates which has always been one of the main instruments. He said that the Government valued its work but he did not promise that it would be given the full support necessary to continue. Nor, for instance, did he say that advance factory building programmes by English industrial estates and its Scottish and Welsh equivalents will be maintained at an adequate rate. Can we have such an assurance now?
Secondly, for the sake of everyone there must be some restraint on large new projects in the congested areas. What is the Government's present policy and what, if anything, are they doing? Do the Government still have the legal power to refuse industrial development certificates in the last resort and, if so, are they using that power? If we simply abandon those positive regional policies we make most of our other economic difficulties—rising prices and rents, and traffic congestion—even more intractable.
Those are some of the positive measures which I believe a modern DTI should be undertaking in the 1990s. But it would also help a little if we have a Secretary of State who believes in what he is supposed to be doing.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this is an important debate relating to the present condition of British industry and to its future structure and supervision. I thank my noble friend Lord Williams for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. I echo his concern about the lack of interest shown on the Government Benches in this important matter. I am afraid that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—who is now signalling to me from a far distance—are not sufficient justification for that particular lack of interest.
It would appear that, to the layman—and I speak as a layman—and as indicated by the Minister during the course of the debate, government policy is one of a market-place free-for-all and the minimal investigation, interfering or monitoring of industrial activities whatever the effects on industry and its
342
employees. The personal and social consequences to the individual employees, their families and communities are given no priority as far as one can ascertain. This is a Government who have no social conscience when looking at industry. I do not advocate for one moment that we must return to a hand-out industrial society but at least the Government could be courteous enough to look at the problems which arise. It is almost as though the workers do not exist as the market-place goes about like a great financial juggernaut.
I take part in the debate as a Scottish layman. I have no industrial expertise, apart from jobs as a student, or knowledge of the intricacies of the industrial process. However, I also take part in the debate as a Clydesider of Highland extraction who, during the years, has witnessed in Scotland the almost inevitable decline of the heavy industries which failed miserably to move and modernise with the times. New high-tech industries have taken the place of traditional industries and the Scottish workforce has now attained a universal acknowledgement of its skills and adaptability to the new industrial and technological challenges.
In so far as there has been an industrial revolution in relation not only to the processes in industry but to the attitudes of management and the workforce, that is of course welcome in Scotland as it is anywhere else. What is not justified is the view now being circulated in relation to a topic about which I shall speak shortly. It is the view that heavy industry, because it is such, is doomed and must go to the wall at some stage.
My interest in the debate, apart from its generality, is to focus the issue of the treatment by British Steel of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig in Motherwell and the off-hand and dismissive approach to the issue by its chairman, Sir Robert Scholey, and by British Steel in general to that vital Scottish issue. I raise it in the context of the debate because at a later stage I wish to comment on the role of the DTI.
Yesterday's newspapers proclaimed the finality of the closure of Ravenscraig, with the chairman confirming that 770 jobs were to disappear. The knock-on effects to families and communities have been completely ignored. Varying estimates in their thousands are being given of the number of people who will be affected by the closure. A figure of 10,000 has been quoted but perhaps that is a little high. Even the Government will accept that at least 3,000 jobs will be affected and that there will be a substantial loss of income to Scotland.
The story of the issue, which has been dealt with on a rational, commercial basis, is that British Steel has treated the workforce at Ravenscraig, the people affected by the imminent closure and those attempting to discover the reasons for the closure (including of all people the Secretary of State for Scotland) with complete contempt and managerial arrogance. According to the Glasgow Herald published yesterday, Sir Robert Scholey said:
"The Government should keep its nose out of the concerns of private industry".
He also said that he would reply to the reasonable request of the Secretary of State,
"when I am ready and that will be in a reasonable time".

343
Has there ever been such a contemptible approach to a government Minister in recent industrial history? It is quite abominable that the Government should sit back and allow Sir Robert Scholey to behave in that way towards the people of Ravenscraig and Scotland as a whole. If he can behave in that way on an isolated incident, there is no reason that he cannot extend that attitude in the future.
The attitude of arrogance of which I have spoken came on the very day on which British Steel announced pre-tax profits of £733 million, an increase of 24 per cent. on the previous year. Does Sir Robert Scholey seriously ask the threatened workforce to lie back and wait for its industrial execution and accept that the Craig—as it is known locally—will be no more?
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe quoted from Hansard and I shall not repeat that. However, it comes to this. Privatisation does not mean total exclusion of public involvement and governmental interest in what is going on in industry. Surely as part of the accounting process which produced the profit figure, there must be precise information as to the productivity and profitability of the Ravenscraig mill and the contribution which that workforce has made to the impressive figure of £733 million, although there are reservations about that figure expressed in the financial columns.
If Ravenscraig is a non-viable, non-profit-making element in British Steel's commercial undertaking, let that be stated firmly and clearly to the people of Scotland and, in particular, of Motherwell so that the workers can know that that is why their livelihoods will be taken away. Let British Steel come forward now and tell the public, including the politicians of another place who are looked upon with disdain and little respect by the chairman of British Steel, and the trade unions the commercial basis for the closure.
British Steel, by its very name, is part of British life and there is a duty to inform the public why that action is being taken. If that is not done voluntarily, then the Department of Trade and Industry should enter into the process and demand to be told so that it can advise the Government. The Scottish economy will not go to the wall because of the closure of Ravenscraig. That is accepted. However, that does not justify the stonewalling attitude being so arrogantly adopted towards the workers and the people of Scotland. That is a posture of industrial imperialism almost amounting to colonialism adopted by the British Steel board.
That is in stark contrast to the responsible attitude and approach being adopted by the trade unions involved headed by Mr. Tommy Brennan. The workers are being treated like peasants, and those days have gone. It is perhaps high time that someone had a word in Sir Robert's ear to tell him that.
The unions accepted that a commercial decision may be justified but neither the trade unions nor anybody else can judge that fact while being denied the vital information on which to make a considered judgment. No less a person than the Prime Minister, in a letter to a Member of another place dated 22nd May 1990, wrote of her admiration of the:
344
"loyalty and dedication of the workforce at Ravenscraig",
Thereafter she stated:
"If British Steel conclude that the hot strip mill is not viable, that is a decision for them to make".
That is perfectly true but one has to ask: on what basis did the Prime Minister accept that decision? Has she been told by the Department of Trade and Industry through its inquiries with British Steel that that is a reasonable judgment to make? How can a responsible government walk away from that issue with all its industrial implications without at least finding out, through the DTI or any other source, whether that commercial decision was justified on the facts? The tone of the Prime Minister's letter echoes the arrogance of Sir Robert Scholey.
A position has now been reached in which the Government, through the monitoring process of the Department of Trade and Industry, while accepting that a commercial judgment is the prerogative of British Steel, should make it clear that the public are entitled to know and must know on what basis the judgment has been made.
Many questions must be answered. That plant was threatened with closure in 1987 but there was a change of mind. The workforce responded magnificently to that situation and its productivity and application to the task since that time could not have been better.
I should like to quote from the Official Report in another place and then I wish to ask a question. It states:
"Irrespective of political views, all of us in Scotland know that the issues involved are wider and greater than that and that the concern is, first, that closure of the hot strip mill could severely weaken, and might lead to the closure of, Ravenscraig as a whole, with the loss of about 3,200 jobs in an area of high unemployment. Secondly, if that happened—it must be seen as a possibility in the light of the announcement by British Steel—for all practical purposes it would signal the end of the steel industry in Scotland. Therefore, wider issues are involved than simply the number of jobs to be lost from the closure of the hot strip mill.
An additional important factor is that over the past three years, throughout the United Kingdom, but including Ravenscraig, British Steel has been making some remarkable achievements. Privatisation, far from leading to a decline in the industry as a whole, has brought tremendous new profitability and competitiveness, for which British Steel is to be congratulated and admired. It is a remarkable achievement. It is also significant that throughout that period Ravenscraig, including the hot strip mill, contributed to that profitability and been part of the success story. That makes last week's announcement much more significant".
The speaker goes on to say:
"I do not believe that there has been one iota of criticism from any quarter about the way that Ravenscraig's workforce responded. Although that does not guarantee the work force a future livelihood—nor can it—it imposes an obligation on British Steel, in the event of a very unpalatable announcement having to be made, to give its employees the reasons for it". [Official Report, Commons, 21/5/90; col. 32.]
I ask: who said that? Was it a member of Her Majesty's official Opposition? Certainly it was not. It was the Secretary of State for Scotland, and still the conspiracy of silence on British Steel persists and the Government do nothing about it. It is quite disgraceful that the people there are left wondering about the whys and wherefores of the closure.
British Steel has been asked to answer a' number of questions about what is going on. They are as follows: what percentage of the £733 million profit

345
is accounted for by input from Ravenscraig; why has the decision been made to close it after its success story since 1987; what is the most recent profit figure for Ravenscraig; what is the most recent figure of output per man and per hour for Ravenscraig; what is its profitability in European terms; what about new investment in Ravenscraig; what about the new Euro jean scene which is emerging and the demand for North Sea oil which is increasing; what about the new use of steel in the car manufacturing industry, and so on. The questions are innumerable and we are left in the position in which no answers have been given to those important questions. We do not know how that will fit in to the pattern of the economy in the future.
If the Department of Trade and Industry accepts, as it did at a meeting with Mr. Ridley, that it has a monitoring role, then it must get off its knees and do something about it. In Scotland we cannot sit back at the behest of Sir Robert Scholey and wait until he cares to dictate a letter to his secretary to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for Scotland. Why are the Government not taking some action to force this man to abandon his imperious attitude towards the people of Scotland? As I say, that may very well spread to other parts of the country. They must pressurise British Steel, through Sir Robert Scholey, to put the facts as he sees them before the people so that the future of Ravenscraig, in or out of the British Steel context, can be assessed and its future, if any, can be shaped as from now, because continual conjecture about Ravenscraig's future can only cause further damage.
It may be capable of an independent existence but that again will depend on what British Steel wants to do with the plant if and when it is closed down. The issue is being fought on a non-political, unemotional basis and is not coming from a whingeing Scot. A Member of the other place called us all whingers and said that we were over subsidised, and So on. It is not a whingeing over-subsidised Scot who is speaking to your Lordships at present. However, it is high time that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has shown very little interest in this matter, got off his knees and backed the Secretary of State for Scotland's efforts to open books and inform the workforce and the public as to why decisions are being taken.
There is another message to Sir Robert Scholey from Scotland. We pride ourselves on being polite people. We have a saying in Scotland that it does not cost anything to be polite; it does not cost anything to be courteous, nor is it difficult. Perhaps people involved in this particular struggle have been too polite towards British Steel. However, that has not been reciprocated by its representatives. Their public utterances and treatment of people with a genuine concern have been contemptible and appalling.
Representatives of the workforce met the Secretary of State for Scotland who was very impressed, first, by their attitude and, secondly, by their suggestions for the future of the Ravenscraig mill. Why is it, if the workforce representatives can
346
meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, they cannot meet their own employer?
I take heed of the advice given at the beginning of the debate to confine my remarks to 14 minutes. I apologise for exceding that by one minute. There are other issues arising out of this topic, but I say to the Department of Trade and Industry: "Get on with the work that you are supposed to be doing and let the people of Scotland know what on earth is happening at Ravenscraig".
6 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it must be very demoralising and disappointing to lose three general elections on the trot with bigger majorities each time. I understand that. However, the Opposition party must curb their disappointment. The Wednesday debates in this House can be helpful and constructive. When I saw that the debate was to be opened by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I thought, 'Good". He is a man who came to your Lordships' House with a very high reputation on matters of finance, the affairs of the City, and matters of that kind. Up to now, his contributions have been impressive. When I entered the Chamber today I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was to wind up the debate. He is an economist who has earned my respect. He knows that because we have discussed it, and I thought we were bound to be all right.
However, there has been no objectivity. This is a straightforward unashamed party political ploy. The language used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, left us in no doubt in that regard. It was good old tub-thumping and brought in as many personalities as possible. There is no sex appeal in quoting figures as figures; if one can tie a few personalities around them then the tabloids are more likely to pay attention. I know the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will bring the debate back to the level his reputation deserves.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House, and his contribution is a rather more important one than normal, although they are all effective. However, he did not face the fact that the Socialist Party policies outlined in Industry 2000—which are quite distinct from the policies given last year in Meet the challenge: 1989, which was passed by their conference—almost exactly copy what this Government have tried to do. If they now want to copy the general line of the Government in facing up to both the national and international problems of the day, as their last pamphlet clearly indicates, it is not any good to suggest that the results of those policies have been a dismal failure. That was what the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, sought to imply.
My noble friend, speaking with authority from the Dispatch Box, gave the facts as known to us. They showed that overall those policies have been an outstanding success.
I was impressed with the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He speaks as a semi-businessman. I say "semi" because many of the responsibilities he carried out were strictly

347
concerned with business, but there was a little semi-bureaucracy tied up with them. Today he showed that the lessons he learned as a businessman meant something. I accept by and large his general description of what should flow from the Motion that we are debating.
I was disappointed with the snide references arising from the Rover deal and the Rover sweeteners that we have heard of for months. We were told that a commission will soon be reporting on the intricacies that arose from that situation. I do not know what that report will contain. However, in France the Renault company apparently also offended against the small print of the regulations. The French showed more loyalty to their French needs than seems to be the case in this country. I have not noticed any undermining of the general standing of the Renault company in France.
According to the Government the sweeteners that were alleged to have been given to Rover—it has not yet been proved or accepted—did not come into the category of a breach of regulations. We shall see what the commission say. The Rover organisation employed many people but I know that since 1970 and over the previous years it lost around £2·5 billion. It continued to lose every year. If that situation had been allowed to continue, it would have been losing money by the bucketful, and in the West Midlands—which is my part of Great Britain—we would automatically have had a lot of unemployment. It was the duty of the DTI and the Government to do their best to negotiate some way to rid us of that incubus while at the same time keeping the ship afloat, so that it could make its great contribution. This they did.
In this debate I did not expect a noble Lord as eminent as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with his expertise, to be a party to the denigration which has flowed from it. We know the dangers. It is all very well to say that it is only politicians or parliamentarians shooting off their mouths. We saw only a few months ago that a supposed dip in the Gallup polls made a difference to the success of many concerns which had to go through a very rough period due to the lost confidence which flowed from that supposed poll. What will happen when speakers as eminent as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, holding the high position that he does in your Lordships' House, speak as he did? What effect will that have on the confidence of the world and their continued investments in this country?
It was those tactics which caused me to say that it clearly was a party ploy. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will take heed. Their eminence does not suit them for that line of approach. They could be knocked for a six if they started that party political ploying game. There is no need for it, and certainly not in this kind of debate. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was not immune to it. I think it was inadvertent in her case.
Those of us who have been around this Palace for a number of years remember some of the tactics. For those that perhaps have not come across it, one of the great tactics that used to be considered a vote-getter was for a Member to find out what a
348
local authority was likely to do in the area where his votes came from: perhaps a new road had to be built or some other improvement made. He found out what was on the long-term agenda and what was likely to be done, and then asked questions and made a noise about it. Then, when the work was done—which had been on the way before he first thought about it—he would come in and claim the credit for having inspired it.
That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, did today when speaking about education and industry and saying nothing had been done. The noble Baroness is one of the successful academics on the Benches opposite. Not only is she an able academic, but she is rather a beautiful one. With those two qualities, she is even more effective. She was being critical when the truth is that in the past five years business has more than doubled in support of universities through research contracts. Some 16,000 academics are supported by research contracts—about one-third of the total—and the universities generated 26 per cent. of their income from the research contracts as opposed to only 19 per cent. in previous years. I know that the noble Baroness is interested in that aspect. One can get the impression that it was movement from the Opposition Benches which claims credit for what has already been done, and that is the sort of tactic that I do not think is in keeping with this place.
There has been a success story over the past 10 years, and if one can establish that then all these attacks on individuals, or attacks on one department such as we heard made on the DTI, are nonsense. I have never known on the race-courses the stewards to say that the horse has won but the jockey has lost. If the horse, which is our general economy, has won—
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He obviously knows nothing about horse racing. That happens all the time. The horse first past the post is frequently disqualified because of incorrect behaviour by the jockey.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I said that the horse had won but the jockey had lost. I hope that noble Lord has not put much money where a jockey has gone one way and the horse the other. What good is it for the horse to go past the winning post without carrying his jockey with him? If we can establish—and I believe my noble friend established—that there has been overall success, then the individual department which has contributed to that success is immune from the criticisms we have heard today.
Of course, it is part of the game to make personal criticisms. Heaven knows! the poor Prime Minister has had to suffer that for the past 10 years. If a fly landed on the wall, members of the Labour Party have stumbled over backwards to blame the mess on the Prime Minister. Only a few years ago everything that went wrong was blamed on the Minister of Health. Just before that it was the Minister for Education. Now it is Mr. Ridley.

349
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, amused me when, he made his special comment about Mr. Ridley. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue and Mr. Ridley are as alike as two peas. They are both their own man. They each have an independent outlook. The noble Lord was criticising someone who is almost his twin brother, so perhaps he will have a look in the mirror to see what it is all about.
The growth and general improvement that has come about justifies the confidence exuded by my noble friend. I conclude on one point. Why has no speaker on the Benches opposite mentioned unemployment? Until 18 months or two years ago we could not have a Question Time without reference to the horrors of unemployment. Every speech made somehow or other dragged in the unemployment figures. The decrease in unemployment figures is the biggest test that we have on the general success of the policy of which the DTI has been a part.
I like speakers to bring some personal evidence to these debates. My personal evidence is a barometer that is worth considering. I have two businesses in the West Midlands for which I am responsible in terms, of whether we win or lose on the balance sheet. One is a paint distributing firm and the other a small hotel group. I can tell your Lordships that prior to the past eight years, during which time we have seen an improvement, my experience in our business results showed that those sort of small to medium-sized businesses were really in trouble and going under for the very lack of any enterprise or development. In our commercial hotels, in the middle of the West Midlands commercial belt, commercial travellers were not occupying our rooms. Businessmen were not coming to the area to use it as a base to bring some of the extra benefits that only now are flowing to the West Midlands. With falling unemployment they have been coming for the past three years. I hope that the Nicholls balance sheet will reflect that, and I have every reason to believe that they will.
My personal evidence and my barometer are those two businesses: paints, which reflect the success of the building industry and all that goes with it and the hotel industry where bedrooms which serve commercial visitors show that claims made by my noble friend on the general success over the past eight years, including that of the DTI, is a success that does not justify the wording of this Motion or the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, not so much because I agree with what he said but because there is a certain scarcity value today in following speakers from the Government Benches. The noble Lord devoted a great deal of his speech to defending government policies against the points made from this side of the House, which entirely related to the Motion now before us. I am happy that my noble friend Lord Donoughue is not here: I hope that he does not read Hansard tomorrow and see that he has been likened with Mr. Ridley as two peas. My noble friend Lady Blackstone would not
350
perhaps appreciate the rather sexist remarks made by the noble Lord about her looks.
However, that apart, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, though I shall not be following his subject. Instead, I shall be making a few remarks about the role of the DTI in relation to consumers. There is little doubt that, with the enormous increase in the range of goods and services on offer, it is critically important to establish new rights for consumers in order to meet the needs of the 1990s. I believe that at present there is insufficient evidence that the Government wish to do that. In fact, there are many signs to the contrary.
Looking back over the past 10 years, British consumers have not done very well. No one can say that industry is exactly consumer-led. The DTI refers to choice for the consumer but sometimes one feels that the choice is either of being ripped off or not being ripped off. Indeed, when proposals are made to protect consumers the Government often listen to the arguments which come from industry and are not at all happy to accept the provisions and protections put forward for consumers.
Perhaps it is not surprising that consumers have not done very well. One recalls that in the Tory manifestos of 1979 and 1983 the word "consumer" did not appear at all. In 1987 consumer affairs merited only a 10-word sentence which read:
"but competition must be supplemented by legal protection for consumers".
That was something, but not very much was promised and even less was delivered. Indeed, one of the first actions of the 1979 Conservative Government, in the field of consumer rights, was to get rid of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. Consumer advice centres have been closed and over the past five years the number of officials charged with protecting consumer interests—trading standards officers and environmental health officers—has fallen by 330.
That situation compares adversely with what is happening in other countries. In Norway and New Zealand consumers have a Ministry responsible for consumer affairs to protect their interests. In most EC countries consumer rights are clear and clearly enforceable. United Kingdom consumers have lost rights and protections during the 1980s. It is not that British consumers do not stand in need of protection. That has been amply proved. Over the past 10 years the number of people seeking help from citizens advice bureaux has increased by 3.5 million to 7.6 million. The figure has more than doubled. That is a very powerful indicator that the consumer is in enormous need of protection and advice.
Every year thousands of people need advice about and protection from unsafe products. Each year thousands of people find themselves the victims of misleading advertisements and information. Others are dissatisfied about the holiday that did not turn out as the brochure promised. Other people have problems with the cars they buy. Each year many people are injured by medical drugs and they find that the pursuit of proper justice in Britain is a slow and disappointing struggle.
The situation for consumers has been very black. Indeed, were it not for the EC, the situation would

351
have been even worse. On the few occasions when a Conservative Government have moved to strengthen consumer interests they have done so at the behest of the EC. They have done so rather reluctantly and often only after exercising every conceivable means of delaying and diluting the intended harmonisation of consumer protection legislation.
One example is the EC directive on product liability which has still not been implemented. Another specific example of how little the Government care for the interests of consumers was shown only a few months ago. The Bill is now in your Lordships' House. It is a Private Member's Bill promoted by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Martyn Jones. He introduced the Consumer Guarantees Bill which gave consumers the all-important right to a replacement or refund in respect of faulty goods. That measure would have very much strengthened the position of people who buy shoddy goods. It is estimated that as many as 38 out of every 100 shoppers are likely to buy faulty products and nearly half of those do not find redress.
However, after a lengthy filibuster in another place the Minister for Consumer Affairs permitted only a very diluted version of the Bill to emerge. It no longer contains any guarantees at all for the consumer.
Another example is the Trade Descriptions Act which is to prevent goods being falsely labelled as environmentally friendly. That is described by the Department of Trade and Industry as the cornerstone of consumer law. Yet only a consultation period of 10 weeks has been given for a general review. It looks as though there is less of a desire to look after the interests of the consumer but more of a desire for political opportunism by the Government to get a slot for this Bill in the next Session.
On several occasions today there have been requests from the other side of the House that we should put forward some of our own ideas. I finish by putting forward some of the views that we have on this side of the House on how better to protect the consumer. It must be remembered that the Government appointed specialist ombudsman in respect of the OFT and the NCC. There are also specific and trained monitoring bodies such as OFTEL. However, none of these holds public inquiries. Investigations are invariably held behind closed doors.
At the local level trading standards officers and environmental health officers can both investigate and initiate prosecutions on behalf of consumers. But their effectiveness is constrained by cuts in local government funding and the chronic staff shortage which is currently running at 17 per cent. for trading standards officers. Clearly, the DTI must give greater priority to their recruitment and training.
The key for many consumers is information about products, services and rights of redress. The DTI part-funded CABs already provide a public service, but the prospect of litigation deters many consumers from seeking their rights. Consideration should be given to class actions performing the functions of test cases which allow all affected consumers to obtain settlement.
352
We would like to see many different Acts regarding consumers simplified and consolidated into one Bill. We do not want more Bills, but we want the laws simplified. We wish to strengthen the sellers' liability and simplify the procedures for redress. As I have said, we want to increase the number of trading standards officers. We wish to review the watchdog bodies because the current ones do not adequately represent consumers. We would also like to establish parliamentary committees to investigate anti-consumer practices and to guarantee the consumer access rights both to information held on them and also to company information which may affect consumers.
Those are measures that would truly safeguard many of the interests of consumers. Any government would be very wise to respect them.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I put my name down on the list of speakers and asked to speak late in the debate with fair confidence that most of the issues will have been already debated and therefore I could deliver a short speech. However, I wish to say how interesting and constructive was the speech of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs.
I do not think we should worry about some party conflict. We represent different policies, and there are different conflicts. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who was rather critical and who knows something about elections, as I do—we once fought an election—should not be too indignant. We had a good opening speech from my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, using a rapier. He was followed by bomber Trefgarne and one colleague of his.
Noble Lords are inclined to think that I cannot speak of anything except the Falkland Islands. I have had difficulty in extending the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry to the Falkland Islands though the noble Lord's previous department, the Ministry of Defence, is involved. I may surprise him and some of my colleagues because I am going to say something favourable about the Government. Some good things have happened, and sometimes despite the efforts of Ministers to see that matters go wrong.
I refer to the Cabinet Office R&D report The Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development which very few people seem to study or notice. There is a large section in it devoted to the Department of Trade and Industry. There is also a section dealing with space. That department is the main holder of responsibility for space matters in this country. I chaired the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It was very critical of the Government at one stage, partly because of the antics of a previous Minister who has now been moved, as my noble friend, Lord Williams, said, and who is now harassing the doctors. Through him we acquired a very bad reputation in Europe. We held up research as regards the Horizon 2000 because we simply refused to agree to certain expenditure and that stopped everybody else from continuing their work.
In a quiet sort of way and almost by stealth, the Government appear not to wish to claim credit for

353
what they have achieved. They have been doing rather well. We were unnecessarily rude about the officials. I do not want to embarrass the principal official by saying that he has done a good job in persuading Ministers. Everything has been partly managed by Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was gradually changing and developing interests. We pointed out that £120 million a year was inadequate for L s to play our proper part in Europe. Well somehow the amount has been increased to £150 million without anyone drawing attention to it.
The Government can be pleased that the British are now paying a useful role in Europe with the European Space Agency. The have focused on the areas that we recommended in the Select Committee report. I refer in particular to remote sensing, which is vital, telecommunications and science. The launch of the Hubble telescope will yield enormously important results. This is an important area of achievement. The officials deserve credit for quietly going along with it. Ministers have encouraged them and certainly have not stopped them.
However I wish that the Government would give more of a lead to this country. We have something to be proud of here. The French and the Germans are proud of their efforts. They go ahead and do so with government support. We are ashamed if we cannot attach a market meaning to our efforts. I should like to see the Government giving a firmer lead in such areas.
With those few compliments, I should like to turn to a less favourable aspect of my remarks. In doing so, I should like to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who was a member of the Aldington Committee. The Government's attitude towards the Aldington Committee was deplorable and there are signs that that attitude is still held today. There was a knee-jerk reaction. In giving evidence to the committee, Nigel Lawson suggested—I do not wish to misrepresent his views—that the development of service industries was as important as the development of manufacturing industry. However, the Government's own advisory committee is now pointing out that industry is not spending enough on R&D. That is a failure on the part of the Government because they have refused, contrary to the advice of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to give incentives to industry to spend more on R&D. It was recommended that we should follow the example of the Australian Government who give 150 per cent. tax write-offs on expenditure for R&D. That recommendation was dismissed by a Treasury inquiry, the findings of which were totally unconvincing to anyone who studied them. The Government should look again to see whether their incentives to industry in the research and development field could be more effective.
That is one aspect of a major failure. A further problem is that statistics are uncertain. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, refer to defence expenditure and to defence R&D. That is a dangerous area to talk about. I shall not develop it now because I hope that we will debate the subject during consideration of the Select Committee report. However, there is little doubt that the figures
354
produced by industry are not satisfactory. The new accounting standard—SSAP13—which takes into account the Frascati criteria will improve industry's return. Nevertheless, a good many of the figures produced by some areas of industry are quite valueless. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry is looking at the matter. We have failed to solve the problem and the latest report is very worrying. I hope that the Government will give the matter serious thought. Perhaps the Minister will indicate what he hopes will happen in this area.
Government action in overseas markets is patchy. I was chairman of the East European Trade Council. We had admirable support from the Foreign Office and from one official in the Minister's department who was extremely good. Certain firms were able to build up. This may repay us today now that the market is opening wider. I ask the Government to look more closely at these technical questions. I hope that they will take into account the convincing criticisms made from this side of the House and not just dismiss them as party politics.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for selecting such an important and topical subject for debate. I understand that it is a convention of the House not to refer to another noble Lord unless one has given him notice. However, in his opening remarks my noble friend Lord Williams referred to the time in office of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. As the debate concerns the Department of Trade and Industry, for which, until quite recently, the noble Lord was responsible, I thought that he would have done us the courtesy of attending it. After all he was responsible for some of the mistakes that were made.
After he was canonised by the Prime Minister and brought into your Lordships' House as a whizz-kid to teach the politicians how to run things—it was said that he was not one himself and had never been one—I put questions to him in his capacity as Secretary of State for Employment, Those questions received either no answer or a manipulation of the figures which a layman on this side of the House, unless he had civil servants with him to deal with the problem, could not have analysed.
The same thing happened when he moved to the Department of Trade and Industry. On many occasions my noble friend Lord Williams questioned the noble Lord, Lord Young, on the whole thrust of government policy. The noble Lord was expert in the non-answer. I am sad that he is not here to answer for some of the things that took place.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other noble Lords referred to the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I was not a member of the committee although I should like to have been. I remember seeing on television part of an interview with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Nigel Lawson. I was astounded by the appalling arrogance with which he treated the Select Committee, especially as it was chaired by a distinguished member of his own party.

355
If there have been mistakes—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, touched on this point—it is because for 10 or 11 years we have had a government who think that their members are the only ones capable of putting forward good ideas and that every suggestion put forward by the Opposition is not worthy of consideration. The Government tried in regard to industry to rubbish the Aldington Report, and in regard to housing and the community at large they rubbished within 12 hours the report of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. That was done by a government spokesman who certainly had not had time to read it. Some of the mistakes can be put down to the Government's refusal to deal with people other than members of their own party.
I listened carefully to the barnstorming speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I come from an area of the country which was one of the most densely populated, if not the most densely populated, in Europe. It contained a mass of factories, including engineering and chemical works, and successful coal mining operations. That area has become an absolute desert. I am talking about east Manchester. When industry there started to wind down, as a shop floor engineer I had to earn some money to keep my family so I crossed Manchester to what was called the "big house"—Metro Vickers in Trafford Park. It then employed 25,000 people. That factory now employs fewer than 7,000 people and has just announced its latest set of redundancies. If the Minister can convince me that further redundancies on that scale in that area show an upturn in the economy, someone must be standing on his head.
Let us look at what has happened to different areas of the country. Well over 2 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industries. There are signs of a slight upturn, although over the past few months there has been a net reduction in the number of people employed in manufacturing. The latest figures that I saw two or three months ago showed that 40,000 jobs in manufacturing—I stand to be corrected—were lost in one month. That does not indicate a solid recovery. If manufacturing industry were doing well it would not openly declare that there is a shortage of skilled labour. That is another appalling tragedy which must be laid at the Government's door.
During my six years in your Lordships' House I can remember Members from all sides drawing attention to the rapid diminution in the number of people being trained in manufacturing skills. Even today, with the so-called recovery, we are training only one-third of the number of skilled engineers, factory workers and similar workers we did previously. If we are to see a substantial economic recovery in the manufacturing sector those figures must be altered dramatically, despite the new technologies which reduce the number of men required.
I shall quote some figures which show where the devastation has taken place. As I said, I come from the North-West which in the past 10 years has lost 354,000 jobs. There have been few replacements to compensate for the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. The West Midlands lost 269,000 jobs and
356
Yorkshire and Humberside 250,000 jobs. Strangely enough, areas of the South-East, which is the most densely populated region, lost most of all. It lost 500,000 jobs. Although that is the largest figure, in percentage terms it is considerably lower than the loss in the North-West and North-East. I shall not mention Northern Ireland and Scotland because I understand that those areas have been adequately dealt with. That is the dimension of what has taken place.
There is no sign at the moment of great former industrial areas, such as Manchester, which have become deserts, being made fertile by the Government's present policies. With high interest rates continuing for an indefinite period it makes it less likely that we shall see a change in the near future.
One further factor that has mitigated heavily against the North in comparison with the South is that the tax situation has been loaded against the recovery of the North. With the permission of the House I shall quote from a document which states:
"What is more, the gap between central government expenditure going to the North and South East has widened since 1980. This has been the result of both a switch in the balance of spending and policy changes within programmes. Major factors have been the rapid increase in defence spending and shifts in the regional pattern of expenditure on Health, Trade and Industry. Housing and other expenditure by the Department of the Environment. Quite clearly, Government expenditure policies are fuelling rather than eroding regional disparities, but what is more, Government tax cuts have also pumped more money into the South East than into the North"—
where it is needed more—
"Research commissioned by the [North of England] Consortium revealed that the three Northern regions have lost nearly all the benefits resulting from the tax cuts since 1980 since they have had to pay more in National Insurance Contributions and indirect taxes. In contrast, people in the South East are on average more than 100 per head better off as a result of the changes in the three taxes. The difference arises because, on average, people in the South East are better off than in the North, and because both income tax cuts and the upper limit on National Insurance Contributions work to the advantage of people on high incomes".
Even people who have the possibility of being re-employed and using their talents are losing out in that way.
There was a debate on transport in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago. I spoke about the inadequacies of British Rail's proposals for the North-West, the part of the country from which I come, when the Channel Tunnel becomes operative. My view was supported by a Government Back-Bench Peer and Peers on the Cross-Benches. The arteries which are supposed to pump life back into the North of England—Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle—will be insufficient if British Rail is left to manage on its own. To revitalise those areas, to bring them nearer in travelling time to the Continent and to make them more attractive, the infrastructure should be funded by the Government. I know that there is a dispute at the moment, and a difference of opinion over an annoucement made recently by Mr. Parkinson about some railway development in the South-East. No doubt he will be further taken to task on that matter.
Unless the Government are prepared to ensure that the railways are adequately funded, I cannot see

357
that they will be able to do the job. British Rail's plans cater for about one-third only of what is required. That means that the South-East will continue to suck in business because of its proximity to Europe and short communication lines to the further disadvantage of the North, the Midlands and Scotland.
Reference has often been made in your Lordships' House to the overcrowding of flight paths and airports in the South-East. I find it strange that some regional airports are under used. It seems mad that the slack is not being taken up and used to advantage.
The debate has been worthwhile, but unless the Government are prepared to provide more funding on a broad basis for the regions that need it and allow the people in those areas to decide the projects and manufacturing industries on which the funds will be spent, we shall get nowhere. I produced figures a few weeks ago showing that of more than £400 million that the Government provided for inner city regeneration, £360 million was spent in Docklands. That is not much good to people in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and Newcastle. There is some recovery but the Minister has drastically overstated the success. I hope that he will tell us a different tale in a few weeks' time.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in his opening speech my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel referred to the two dubious activities of the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the House of Fraser and the Rover deals. We have never had any coherent answer from the Government as to the currency deals that took place at the time of the House of Fraser deal, nor the visit to Downing Street. That remains a sleazy mystery.
On Rover, as I have done previously, I refuse to use a euphemism. The Rover deal was based on bribery and deceit. I repeat what I said earlier in this House, that the deal—as evidenced by the documents placed in the Library, the letters from the noble Lord, Lord Young himself—shows that the standard of public morality in this country has fallen from the time when it was accepted that if anybody was discovered to have been deceiving Parliament, he resigned. He did not become the chairman of Cable and Wireless.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I wonder whether the rules of the House justify Members of this House being impugned in the way in which the noble Lord has done. To question their judgment is one thing; to question their honour in the explicit terms used by the noble Lord is, I should have thought, outside the rules.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am deliberately using the word "deceit". That word "deceit" will be confirmed by reference to the letters from the noble Lord, Lord Young, to British Aerospace which are in the Library. I have mentioned this before in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Young.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Denham: My Lords, the rule in this House is that one does not mention any Member of the House in adverse terms unless one has given notice to that Member that one will do so, so that he can be present and reply. I hope that the noble Lord has given that notice to my noble friend. If he has not, he is certainly breaking the traditions and customs of the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have not given notice before this debate because I have not had the opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has not been available, so far as I know and I have made inquiries in the House. However, please let me finish.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am afraid that that will not do. The customs of the House are that if a noble Lord wishes to mention adversely another Member of this House, he should have given notice to that noble Lord so that he could be there to defend himself. If the noble Lord has not done that, he must not break the customs of the House because it is not acceptable.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish the sentence. I was pointing out that what I say now about the letters from the former Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry I said in this House in his presence, while he sat on the Benches opposite when we were debating the Rover deal. I simply repeat the general point that this is an illustration of the reduction in the standard of public morality. There is an open attempt to deceive Parliament and the Commission. It is shown there in the Library. In previous years it has been the custom for anyone attempting to deceive Parliament to resign. That is our responsibility; it is the responsibility of this House and of Parliament as a whole. I do not intend to make a speech about responsibilities; we have to deal with the matter.
What is the effect abroad? Surely instances of this kind—whether it be the House of Fraser, the Clowes case or the Rover case—reflect those lower standards of public morality and are bound to affect our reputation abroad. They will affect our reputation not just for morality but also for efficiency.
I wish to concentrate the major part of what I have to say tonight on a different issue, and one which I have raised here before. I sympathise totally with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, over his indisposition when we were debating manufacturing industry on 21st February. He was unable to answer the points raised during the debate. I hope that he will take this opportunity, which is the first he has had since then, to answer the points that have been made during that debate, particularly the specific points to which I shall refer.
I start by quoting as the text of the message I wish to press to the Government, from a report of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which is hardly a Left-wing journal. The report states:

359
"There are in addition three economic arguments to suggest that major resource transfers to the developing world can be in the broad economic interests of the developed. The first is the common general argument that a healthy developing world is an increasingly important component of a healthy world economy, which is in the interests of all countries. The second is the specific corollary of this: some forms of resource transfer represent assured export markets, helping to ensure full employment in the West".
My next quotation to support that central case is drawn from the Aldington Report. I am glad that three members of the Aldington committee are present to support the unanimous report of a committee on which I was privileged to serve. The report stated:
"Although aid is important, per capita income level of a developing country is a far more significant determinant of the level of trade. Britain probably has more to gain by trying to expand the purchasing power of developing countries than by direct procurement under aid schemes. The Committee have heard in evidence that markets in the developing world are expanding much faster than those in the EEC. Smaller though the base for growth may be, the Committee think that every consideration should be given to expanding trade with these developing countries by seeking to expand their purchasing power. As Sir Geoffrey Howe said recently, 'Renewed economic growth in African countries is vital to British industry'".
That is a strong case for expanding our export markets and at the same time for reviving our manufacturing industry and providing increased employment in this country. However, the case is an even stronger one if one looks at the figures. The trade deficit of this country has been mentioned many times this afternoon. That trade deficit is with the developed world—our competitors. We have a surplus in our trade with the third world. However, we must beware of that because part of that surplus is certainly due to the low commodity prices which have been paid over the past 10 years. Incidentally, that has greatly helped Western countries to keep down inflation.
Some figures were provided in May of this year. The figures refer to a period from 1970 to 1988 and they show what has been happening in British trade with the developed and the developing world. During that period exports to the developed world rose from 73 per cent. of our export trade to 80 per cent., whereas imports rose from 73 per cent. of our total import trade to 86 per cent. On the other hand, during that same period our exports to the developing world fell from 23 per cent. to 17 per cent. of our total export figure and imports fell from 24 per cent. to 12 per cent. of our total import figure. I suggest that that reveals a short-term policy. Such a policy is not considering the long-term interests of the economic development of this country. One could compare that policy, with certain reservations, with the policies of Japan. The Japanese are looking at the long-term. They are looking to the development of markets throughout South East Asia. They are prepared to have a deficit with those countries in the hope that they will build up markets in those countries which can be relied upon to be Japanese markets in the future.
On 21st February I made some specific suggestions regarding the importance of developing and exporting environmental technology from this country. I mentioned wind power, wave power, solar power, refrigeration and other technologies. I referred to technology which was developed in this
360
country and which could be an invaluable asset to third world countries. It could also provide new manufacturing industry and new jobs in this country. Above all, it would give Britain a long-term future in expanding world markets. It would give us an opportunity to marry our export drive and our manufacturing drive in these new technologies with some hope of maintaining social, economic and political stability as the developing world increases its standard of living. We hope that the developing world increases its standard of living.
I made a set of specific suggestions on 21st February. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will take a few minutes to respond to those suggestions. In this situation where trade with the third world is declining and where the proportion of our trade with our competitors is increasing and thereby increasing and greatly multiplying our trade deficit, what are the Government doing? One discovers that the Government are reducing the staff of our embassies. That is hardly a measure that will encourage exports. The Government are in particular reducing the staff of the commercial sections of our embassies. There is a problem here which I hope the Minister will address as he shares responsibility for that sector of our public servants with the Foreign Office. The export promotion staff have no proper career structure. At the end of the previous Labour Government certain proposals were made. However, we did not have time to carry them out. I wonder what the Government have done in the intervening 11 years to implement those proposals and to ensure that this vital section of our embassies abroad is given a structure which will encourage staff to continue their careers in it.
Further, what are the Government doing about the Export Credit Guarantee Department? Apparently the Government are hiving it off and weakening it. I again refer back to the Aldington Report. That department is a vital element in the promotion of exports and I believe it could be of considerable benefit to the policy of increasing exports to third world countries. However, the Government have increased the premiums for long-term project business. That is a handicap to the' export market. From April 1989 the Government imposed export charges.
Finally, the Government have been cutting export marketing research. That is surely something which is of vital interest to the whole of our manufacturing industry, our economy and particularly to the export sector of our economic effort. I ask the Minister to reply to those points and to refer in his reply to the points that he was unable to answer on 21st February.
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in listening to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I recognised a classic example of Satan refuting sin. I recalled the experiences of the time when the Labour Government were in power. I recalled the overmanning in industry.
Noble Lords: You supported it!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my party supported the Labour Government for a very short period of time. During the time we supported it we did our best to modify some of the nonsenses that were produced. However, I only have 14 minutes in which to speak and I should be grateful if noble Lords would not interrupt me.
I recalled the poor record on training, the subservience to the trade union movement and the poor share of world trade. Those were just some of the weaknesses that the Labour Government compounded by their passion for picking winners. I gather that they intend to continue with that policy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly give us a record of the actions of the last Liberal Government?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is an extremely cheap remark. If that is the best that the noble Lord can say in defence of the actions of the previous Labour Government, it is a pretty poor do. The noble Lord knows perfectly well what the answer to his question is. However, I shall not take up my 14 minutes replying to frivolous questions which are posed simply because the noble Lord has nothing better to say in defence of his own party.
I referred to Satan refuting sin. However, no one should imagine that this is a paeon of praise for the present Government. However, the present Government have done some things which badly needed doing, and we should recognise that. We shall be up against increasingly heavy competition in the future. I do not believe that even now most Members of this House recognise how tough that competition will be. People should realise that the world outside is not interested in the fact that we wish to protect certain elements of society. We have to earn our living in the world outside, where conditions are tough. The Government's emphasis on the importance of competition is overdue and welcome. The extent to which the Conservative Party is no longer a protectionist party is overdue and welcome. The Conservative Party has not altogether carried out the doctrines that it proclaims but I suppose that no party ever does. The Government believe in competition. It is sad, then, that they have created private monopolies without any real attempt to introduce competition into them. Indeed, in industries such as water it is impossible to introduce competition.
Some of the actions of the Government have produced an improvement in industry. It is foolish to pretend that that is not so. However, to much too great an extent this Government have been short term in what they have tried to do and short term in their attitude towards success. Sometimes I believe that they behave not like economists or even like accountants but much more like book-keepers—provided the books balance at the end of the week everything is fine. That is not the way to develop a sustained policy for wealth creation. In the world economy today it is a sustained policy for wealth creation that is needed. That means for more effective investment, far better targeted than it is at present.
362
I know that the Government will say that it is all a question of money, that they cannot afford to do what I am about to say it is vital should be done. Perhaps I may point out that mortgage tax relief—and I do not for one moment suggest that we should abolish it overnight—loses the Government £7billion a year. There is no need to give mortgate income tax relief at 40 per cent. to the best off. That is subsidisation of the wealthy by the less wealthy. There was no need to increase the level of mortgage income tax relief to £30,000. A subsidy of £7 billion is an enormous amount to give in one direction. The result has been to boost house prices, with the trail of problems that have followed in their wake, although they are now coming down somewhat for quite different reasons. Therefore the Government should not say that there is not the money for the essential capital investment which is needed if there is to be sustained growth of wealth.
Other noble Lords have referred to the miserable allowance for research and development. One cannot have a wealthy and competitive industry without good research and development. That means money. It means money at all manner of levels—money for research establishments and for the training and development of the people who are capable of doing the research.
We also need investment in infrastructure. I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, when he referred to the failure to provide adequate rail facilities in this country. We have been told today that the Government are refusing to put any money into the rail links to the Channel Tunnel. What is the point of developing the Channel Tunnel—and, yes, it is being built with private money, but that is all part of the resources of UK Ltd.—unless we back it up with the best possible rail communications? Surely what we need is rail links which will go from the tunnel to the Midlands, branching off to the North-West and the North-East. That would mean that Liverpool and Newcastle and those areas of the country which have been so badly hit by the inevitable changes of the restructuring of industry that we have faced over the past few years have a reasonable chance of revival. What a difference it would make if one could put one's goods on the train at Liverpool or Newcastle and take them off again at Dusseldorf without any interruption in between.
That is the most effective way of producing a recovery in those areas of the country without bolstering industries which cannot continue anyway. That is not the answer. The answer is to give them the chance to take full advantage of the new opportunities that are available provided we have the essential rail links. Yet only today the Prime Minister has told us that no public money can be put into those rail links. What doctrinaire folly. Because it was said that the links had to be provided out of private money no public money can be used to make good what is needed to make this very important opportunity a reality.
There is also the question of that investment in people without which there is no hope that we shall be able to compete with the Japanese, with the developed countries in the Pacific, with the peoples of Eastern Europe and with the Americans—right

363
across the world. That is the competition that we are up against, in high-tech industries which require highly trained people. What are the Government doing about it? They have made some reforms in education but they are stinting on the money needed to make it a reality and to produce the full effect of the changes that are being made.
What are they doing about keeping more 16 to 18 year-olds in school and in training establishments—in real training so that we can turn out a trained, educated labour force? That is the only type of labour force which has any hope of competing with the world as it will be in the 1990s let alone in the 21st century. Here again it was reported in the papers only this morning that the Government are cutting back on the TVI scheme. In some areas the scheme showed great possibilities of providing the kind of education that would appeal to bright youngsters who are not academic but who have the capacity to do a great deal of high level work, given the right educational opportunities.
As we have asked on so many occasions, what are the Government doing to increase the tertiary sector? There have been restrictions on university and polytechnic development and the loan scheme. We have been over the ground many times. However, in terms of developing industry, unless these things are done we shall be way behind. We shall not possibly be able to do all those other things that we say that we want to do because we shall not have the wealth to do it. It is long-term development—the capacity to produce wealth—which is the test of whether the Government, and therefore the Department of Trade and Industry, are doing the job that the country needs them to do.
There is a further area which the Government have neglected but which is absolutely vital to long-term, sustained wealth creation. The Government know that one of their major worries is the question of increased wage inflation. They have been able to control strikes and wage inflation because there were high levels of unemployment. We have warned them from these Benches again and again that that is not a good enough resource once the country begins to recover economically. Unfortunately, it is already clear that those warnings were well based.
The Government's attitude towards the social charter shows how little they understand what is involved in producing sustained wealth creation, especially in industries in which rapid change is necessary—and that will apply to most of our industry. We hear a great deal about the importance of good management these days. I am second to none in agreeing that that is needed. However, good management is about getting things done by people. One can only get things done through people if they feel that there is something in it for them. The Government have gone a little way through employee share holding which enables people in enterprises to feel that the success of the enterprise is also their success. However, they need to go a great deal further.
The social charter is the essential other side of the economic restructuring which has to take place and will take place inside the single market. However, unless people who will be affected by those changes
364
feel that there is something in it for them and that they have an opportunity to share in the shaping of those changes and have some influence on them, they will resist them. No amount of tough management is any substitute for the co-operation without which it is not possible to succeed.
The Government have made some changes to trade union law which we in this party support. I believe that now they have gone too far. They have to recognise that they have to find ways to come to terms with that. I do not for one moment suggest that we should go back to corporatism. I agree that corporatism was a blight on this country. However, that does not mean that one cannot manage without obtaining the real co-operation of the people without whose co-operation no wealth creation will take place.
The Government are throwing away opportunities by not being prepared to take the long view and being far too content with short-term gains without long-term planning for continuing success.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in responding to the debate, I am mindful of the admonition of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. As he knows, I am never political, but I must tell him that I do not regard attacking this Conservative Government as political; it is more a matter of public service.
On our main theme, my noble friends have covered all the important matters. My role is to place them in the broader economic context. Let me start by saying a few words about manufacturing productivity. I have acknowledged before that manufacturing productivity has risen faster in the 1980s than in the 1970s; but some of that is a statistical artefact—the so-called batting average effect. If the weaker firms or plants are driven out of existence, the figures will then seem to show that average productivity has risen, although in fact no firm or plant will have become more efficient. However, there has been some genuine increase in productivity. That is largely a catching-up effect. We have moved closer to world averages: but, for the most part, we have not caught up and the latest figures appear to show that the rise in manufacturing productivity is coming to an end, and indeed has probably ended.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said that manufacturing is important, but that it is only part of the picture. We must look at services as well. He is entirely right; but, if he is right, what matters is overall productivity. Here again the position is less good. At best, we have got back to our long-term productivity trend from which, for obvious reasons connected with the oil price rise explosion, we deviated in the 1970s. In that sense therefore, on productivity the Government have achieved nothing at all.
But matters are worse than that because it appears—and it appears from listening today—that, in addition to lack of achievement, we have complacency. The "know nothing" view of research and development and training is particularly frightening. Coupled with recent setbacks to investment, the outlook for industry is not good.

365
On the balance of payments, one of the great achievements of the last Labour Government—surprisingly enough, I have no difficulty in defending the last Labour Government—was to bring the balance of payments under control. As a ratio to gross domestic product, it was on an improving trend from 1974 up to 1981. Since then, the trend has been altogether the other way, reaching its nadir in 1989 with the highest adverse ratio in history. That is despite the boon of an oil surplus in the 1980s compared with the oil deficit of the 1970s.
Another way of seeing the nature of the Government's failure is to cumulate the deficits and surpluses from 1979 to 1989. Again, despite North Sea oil, the cumulative deficit in that decade is of the order of £17 billion. That is recognised by all, not least by the Government's statisticians, as the best measure of the decline in our net overseas asset position.
There is worse to come, because, even on the most optimistic forecasts, unless there is a change of Government and a change in policies over the next three years, there will be a further £40 billion to £50 billion accumulated deficit to add to that. In other words, the decline in our net asset position will exceed our reserves. Since the net flow of long-term capital is also outward, the short-term financing problem is immense. The position must become critical in due course.
Let me turn to the subject of inflation. Here too I acknowledge that prices have risen less rapidly in the 1080s than in the 1970s. The Government take credit for that, but it is worth placing in perspective. First, inflation has fallen in all countries in the 1980s compared with the 1970s. Secondly, although the UK's relative inflation position improved in the first part of the 1980s, it has deteriorated since then. As we all know, we have at present pretty well the highest inflation rate in the advanced industrialised world. Thirdly, with two massive oil price rises in the earlier period, coupled with the fact then that we were net importers of oil, the problem for the last Labour Government was immensely more difficult than the problem that confronts this Government. Finally—this is in response to one noble Lord—the Government have allowed unemployment to rise. It rose to unprecedentedly high levels as part of their anti-inflation policy. They point to the fall in unemployment in recent years, but what compensation is that to all those whose lives were ruined in the earlier part of that period?
I have learnt two things on economic policy from this Government. First, if in doubt, choose policies the costs of which fall most strongly on the vulnerable and disadvantaged. Secondly, if all else fails, change the statistics.
In the modern era, it has been recognised that a commitment to full employment is itself likely to make the economy inflation-prone. Most post-war governments have pursued an incomes policy, either by persuasion or on a statutory basis. Even this Government have pursued a strong but covert incomes policy in the public sector, as some of us know directly to our cost. More recently, they have
366
entered the exhortatory phase of Ministers commenting endlessly that the private sector must be responsible and show wage and salary restraint. I agree that what may be called a formal incomes policy is widely thought to be unpopular; and even a Keynesian dinosaur such as myself is obliged to accept that.
Nonetheless, something more is required than cash limits for workers in the public sector coupled with ministerial moaning at the private sector. In that connection, the recent suggestion for what is called co-ordinating pay bargaining by Mr. Peter Robinson of the Campaign for Work is worthy of serious consideration. He recommends a method of introducing the general issues of inflationary pressures into the system of decentralised collective bargaining. However, much as I support that view, I recognise that such an approach can work only by agreement; but it is an alternative that is well worth considering. It is certainly far superior to a policy of widespread unemployment.
Lastly on this theme of inflation, I turn to fixed exchange rates. If the money supply, nominal incomes or high interest rates do not tie down the system to an anti-inflationary stance, then fixed exchange rates will do the job. That was the thinking that lay behind Bretton Woods. It is what lies behind the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. Again, although I do not regard the exchange rate mechanism as a panacea—certainly, joining is not without its risks—it can have a useful part to play in an overall strategy. It does not solve the inflation problem, but it gives us a basis on which the solution can be formulated.
In my judgment—I emphasise the word "my"—we have suffered by our failure to join up to now. I am also concerned that speculation on the date of our joining, apparently sometimes fuelled by the Treasury itself, has driven the pound up excessively and may put us back again on a rate of exchange roller-coaster. The Chancellor must end that uncertainty and stop talking about when the time is right, and what are now called the Madrid criteria. We do not have world enough and time.
I now turn to the central issue; namely, what is the point of the DTI? As has already been noted, in posing that question I am in agreement with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; but only in posing the question, for our answers differ. It appears that he can see no point in the DTI—the department of which he is the political head—and apparently wants to close it down. I stand second to none in my admiration for the Civil Service when I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that it consists of people who are immensely hardworking, loyal and very much underpaid. I must say that because I have a strong feeling that my noble friend, Lord Williams, and perhaps even myself, will find that they are working for us in the near future, and we shall need their help. They are admirable people, of course. However, I can see no point in the department as it is. One wants to see this department transformed back to playing its major role in economic policy, especially its major role in micro-economic policy.

367
What is its role? I offer a partial answer, echoing in all cases the words of my noble friends. First of all, I point out that its role is to improve the working of the market mechanism, and equally—this is the point at which one remembers its heritage as the Department of Trade—to scrutinise critically all forms and demands for protection. Left to itself the market works, but the trouble is that it works less than perfectly. The market guided and enhanced by government in the form of an active DTI works very much better. Entrepreneurs have to plan. At the industry level the DTI's role is to facilitate the planning environment.
I should add in addition that in terms of markets the DTI continues and must continue to have a vital role in protecting the consumer, as my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said. It is one of the areas in which it has failed us most; and when I say "us" I speak as a consumer.
Secondly, the DTI's role must be to contribute to and provide a focus for the process of innovation. Macro-economic aspects of investment for innovation may be the concern of the Treasury and the Bank of England. However, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, when it comes to the detail, concern with the structures which assist that innovation must be the business of the DTI. In particular, if the short-termism of the City of London is ever to be overcome, the responsibility again must lie with the DTI.
Emphasising the regional aspects of economic policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and other noble Lords have pointed out, is again a central role for the DTI. Perhaps I may also echo the words of noble Lords who have referred to the Channel Tunnel—I nearly said "Channel trouble" as a slip of the tongue. If the economic consequences of the Channel Tunnel are to be positive, we must provide a proper infrastructure for it. If we do not do so, the economic consequences will lead to precisely that imbalance mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams in his opening remarks.
Next the DTI must co-operate with the Department of Employment to produce that training revolution on which the future of the country depends. On this theme I must again stress the parlous state of management education in this country. Something must be done as a matter of urgency. Our concern in particular must not be with a managerial élite but with management at all levels.
The DTI has to have a role in creating a framework in which manufacturing industry can be restructured. I am aware of the traditional problem, which is almost a contradiction, of the encouragement of competition on the one hand and the encouragement of integration on the other. All those who have been involved with Westminister and Whitehall have seen, as it were, the competition aspect as perhaps the trade side and the integration aspect as the industry side.
I have to tell noble Lords—again it is a subject about which many of us have thought for many years—that I blow hot and cold as to whether I believe that we would have been better off with a
368
department of trade and a department of industry. Sometimes I believe that separation is best; sometimes I think that bringing them together, as has recently happened, is best. At the moment I am on the side of keeping them together. By next week I may be back to the merits of separating them. That simply emphasises what an interesting and important topic this is.
My general view on this matter is that a strong DTI coupled with a strong Office of Fair Trading and strong regulators can solve the problem. Obviously the market must allow small firms to grow, and large firms also must be allowed to become larger still. But in all cases what we want are efficiency gains and not greater monopoly power.
In conclusion and returning to the main theme on the general state of the economy, what we observe we have seen before. One reason why we know that this Government are on their way out, and why they know that they are on their way out, is that, true to form, they are again creating a terrible mess for these Benches to clear up. All that is before they take further risks with expansionary policy, to try to win an election that is already lost. As my noble friend Lord Bottomley said, it is time for this Government to move over and let us get down to the business of putting things right.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am conscious that at this point in the debate I may only speak for a second time with your Lordships' permission. I hope that I have it.
Debates of this kind in your Lordships' House are invariably worthwhile, characterised as they are by valuable contributions from individual noble Lords with direct experience in many areas. The relationship between government and business can only be one of partnership. For their part, the Government must concentrate their efforts on creating the best possible climate in which those in business can pursue their activities—reforming the tax system, removing disincentives to competition, evolving long-term policies on education and training and investment in science and technology.
Those are all matters which your Lordships have urged upon the Government. I am pleased to be able to say that we are continuing with all of them. The role of business is to seize the opportunities provided by these favourable conditions and to face up to the international competition. As I have said, Britain's companies have proved capable of achieving that, provided that the Government allow them to get on with the job.
I shall reply to as many as possible of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and, I think, some other noble Lords referred to research and development. Our role is to set the climate for innovation. It is for industry to assess its markets and balance the risks and rewards of financing R&D. Where the Government provide support, it is targeted on areas where research is necessary before there can be any commercial applications of a product, and on technology transfer.

369
There was reference to an apparent reduction in my department's expenditure on science and technology in the past year or so. One of the major reasons relates to launch aid. This results in part from a delay in existing projects and in part from the success of previous projects leading to higher levy receipts than expected. Neither of those factors is within the Government's control. In addition, industry has been slower than we expected to come forward with collaborative research proposals but these have built up gradually and we are prepared to be flexible.
For example, we dealt positively with industry's excellent response to the SMART scheme by making 140 awards in 1988 and 150 awards last year compared with an original expectation of 100. I do not wholly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. In many cases firms ought to be doing more R&D.
The noble Baroness referred to defence research and development, as did at least one other noble Lord. I had some responsibility for that in my previous appointment. A great deal of civil spin-off arises from defence R&D. There is no doubt about that. Nonetheless we have taken steps in recent years to ensure that we do not absorb more research capacity in defence R&D activity than is absolutely necessary, the result being, we hope, that a number of expert scientists and technologists can move over into other areas. It is for firms to take advantage of these opportunities. To some extent it is disappointing that firms have not taken up more of the opportunities that have become available. The Ministry of Defence is also conducting special programmes to ensure that some of the useful things that emerge from the defence research establishments are more readily made available for civilian purposes.
As the noble Baroness said, the defence R&D budget is a substantial sum. Of course it is mostly D rather than R and it is D carried out by commercial firms in pursuit of the projects which are assigned to them rather than development carried out just in defence research establishments.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Donoughue, dwelt at some length on the regulation of insurance companies and other financial institutions. Perhaps I may deal first with the insurance industry. The industry in the United Kingdom is very carefully supervised both with regard to insolvency and the fitness and propriety of its controllers and managers. The system of supervision of Lloyd's has been very thoroughly overhauled, as noble Lords will be aware. I am confident that it is fully adequate to meet the requirements of the modern international market. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Lloyd's has never failed to pay on a valid claim.
On the question of company investigation and regulation more generally, the Department of Trade and Industry report—to which reference has been made—is generally supportive of the general regulatory framework and of the changes introduced in recent years. It recognises that the number of completed inquiries continues to rise and that the
370
time taken on major investigations has been substantially reduced. The detailed recommendations are being given the necessary careful study before the Government give their considered response to the committee.
The department gives serious consideration to all complaints but can only investigate if statutory conditions are met. It would be wrong to use these extensive powers to go on what are called fishing expeditions. Each year the department's investigation division receives some 600 requests to look into the affairs of individual companies. In practice about a quarter, or 150 a year, merit investigation, normally under Section 447 of the Companies Act, referred to by the Select Committee as basic fact finding through the calling for papers from companies. Each such investigation typically takes three months to complete.
On follow-up to DTI reports, in 1989–90 such action was taken in relation to 69 companies following DTI investigations. There were successful convictions or disqualifications in 38 cases, winding up orders in relation to 19 companies, and a number of formal warning letters. Only in a very few major cases is there call for the use of the powers under Section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to appoint outside inspectors—an aspect on which the Select Committee dwelt at some length.
I shall not repeat what has been said on earlier occasions about the House of Fraser business. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to an honourable Member in another place, Mr. Tam Dalyell. I dare say that the noble Lord has seen that letter. My right honourable friend made a number of points in it.
On insider dealing, the Select Committee makes major and controversial recommendations on insider dealing which it acknowledges to be a difficult area. We are already reviewing the law in that area and will closely consider the committee's recommendations.
The Select Committee criticised the length of time taken by the department in deciding whether to appoint inspectors under Section 177 of the Financial Services Act; and the time taken by inspectors once appointed. On the former, it took longer to decide to make an appointment when the powers were new and untried. Our target now is to make decisions within an average of six weeks. That is currently being met.
Inspections have on average taken 11 months. We expect them to be completed more quickly as experienced inspectors are re-appointed, guidance notes are issued, and more progress meetings are held. Convictions have been secured in 11 out of 20 insider dealing cases in which prosecutions were brought. Twelve defendants were convicted.
The noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and others, referred to the problems of the steel industry with particular reference to Ravenscraig. I am sure that noble Lords will not have forgotten British Steel's huge losses when in public ownership in the 1970s. Between 1975 and 1985 subsidies to this industry, expressed in today's money, were nearly £14·5 billion. Since

371
1985 there has been no subsidy and British Steel is now profitable. We must not go back to the bad old days where commercial decisions were overturned through political interference. The Government regret any job losses caused by the recently announced closures affecting the steel industry. However, those are commercial decisions to be made by the companies concerned, including British Steel.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made a number of points. I fear that I cannot deal with all of them. He asked about Expo 92 in Seville. I am the junior Minister responsible for our participation in that event. We are determined to have the best pavilion to which we have allocated no less than £25 million of government money. Indeed, it was a condition of our participation laid down from on high that we should do so only if we were the best. I am determined that we shall be. We have engaged firms of designers to assist us. I hope very much that the noble Lord will have a chance to visit Seville in 1992 to see what has been achieved.
The noble Lord also touched on export promotion generally. I agree that that it is a most important matter. It is one that falls directly to me within the department. I can assure the noble Lord that I am extremely energetic, if nothing else, in discharging my duties in that area. I seem to spend more time overseas pursuing those duties than I do in your Lordships' House which is very much to be regretted.
I have already spoken about regional policy. The subject was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and others. I do not wish to repeat myself. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Perhaps I may add one point about the so-called North-South divide. I do not find that concept helpful. All regions contain prosperous areas. Unemployment has fallen everywhere with the largest falls in the assisted areas. The noble Lord asked about the regional breakdown of consultancy take-up. I am told that 78·8 per cent. of the projects completed were outside the South East.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to what he called a slump in investment last year. There was a 1 per cent. fall in the fourth quarter but that should not be considered in isolation. The first quarter of 1990 showed a record level of investment, 9 per cent. higher than one year previously. Moreover, a recent Central Statistical Office survey of investment intentions suggests that manufacturing will exceed last year's record level with further growth expected next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also suggested that we need a more purposeful strategy with regard to overseas trade. I do not wish to add to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. However, I agree that we need a firm and clear policy in that area. I believe that we have it. Witness, my Lords, the fact that our exports are doing so well at the moment. If one considers the figures closely our exports are now increasing at a sharper rate than our imports. I hope that we shall soon see the figures coming together in a way that will appeal to all noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the 1992 single market programme and what we need to do to ensure that we shape our business into the
372
best possible posture to meet that challenge. It is a challenge and an opportunity. We have already completed our so-called "awareness" campaign. According to our researches, some 95 per cent. of British businesses are now aware of the approach of the single European market in 1992 although, frankly, a rather smaller percentage is putting itself into the right position to do anything about it.
I am very much involved in trying to overcome that problem. I hope to enlist the aid of the trade associations and chambers of commerce. I have spent a great deal of time recently on that programme. We are conducting the poster campaign to which the noble Lord referred a few weeks ago, including the splendid one at Llandrindod Wells to which I had such personal attachment.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, who is not now in his place, referred to English Estates. We are adding to the measures available to English Estates to encourage private sector investment in assisted areas where the private sector cannot be drawn in. English Estates will still be able to undertake direct factory development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, spoke with conviction about the interests of the consumer. I share the view of the noble Baroness that it is a most important matter even if I do not agree with all the proposals that her party has put forward. The noble Baroness was right when she suggested that the Government's policies of increasing choice and safeguarding competition are for the benefit of the consumer. That is at the very heart of our approach. But she was also right when she spoke of the need in some cases for formal consumer protection. This may not be the time to comment on the other detailed points that she raised. I shall study carefully what she said. If I have anything to add I shall write to her.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke of education and training which is also an important matter. The Government are performing their responsibilities in full. We have made fundamental reforms to the education system in order to raise standards in schools and the performance of school leavers. We have also improved the funding mechanisms for colleges and universities. The Government spend more than £2 billion per year on training young people and the long-term unemployed with increasing emphasis on vocational qualifications. However, the primary responsibility for training those in employment must lie with employers. They know their own needs best.
For that reason we have introduced the new training and enterprise councils, the first dozen of which became operational in April. They will provide for the first time influential employer-led bodies in every local area. They will be responsible for the skill requirements of the local economy and for developing training to meet those needs. At the other end of the spectrum we are giving close attention to the needs of managers. Our "Managing into the Nineties" programme aims to spread best practice with the emphasis on helping companies to help themselves. It brings the attention of managers to the various modern techniques and technologies that can be used to improve the performance of their

373
companies. The key message of the programme is the need to integrate all functions of business within a proper business plan or strategy. It is for managers themselves to recognise the opportunities and take action In partnership with other organisations the DTI provides signposts to help them to locate the information and assistance they need.
Thanks to the discipline encouraged by more open markets and free competition, industry is now fitter than it has been for many years to face the challenges of the 1990s. I believe that the Government have pursued with vigour the enabling role which noble Lords have rightly urged upon us and with which we shall continue.
7.51 p.m.
Loral Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply and for speaking twice in the debate. I am sad that the mover of a Motion does not have an opportunity to make a serious winding-up speech—it is purely formal—because there are many points that I should have wished to answer.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate; it has been a useful occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Bill
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Private Member's Bill is designed to bring about a modest change in the law of Scotland. I hope that your Lordships will consider it useful to members of the public, lawyers and other professional advisers. The Bill was piloted through another place by my honourable friend Mr. Bill Walker, the Member for Tayside North. I and several other noble Lords present in the Chamber live in that constituency. In another place it received all-party and Government support.
The Bill is based on a report by the Scottish Law Commission published in October 1987 and numbered 108. The report followed extensive consultation by the Law Commission throughout Scotland. The aim of the Bill is to define for legal purposes the specific dates which are referred to when the traditional expressions Whitsunday, Martinmas, Candlemas and Lammas are used. Whitsunday and Martinmas are the term days and the four days are collectively known as the quarter days. I emphasise—and it is important—that the Bill defines the expressions for legal purposes only. It in no way affects the way they are used in relation to religious festivals, local holidays or for any other purpose. For example, it does not affect the date of Pentecost and so arrive at a fixed date for Easter, although I know that that is an aspiration of some Members of this House.
374
Noble Lords who live in Scotland will know that the expressions Whitsunday, Martinmas, Candlemas and Lammas are used in a number of contexts but most frequently used in Scots law in relation to the leasing of agricultural and non-agricultural subjects. The term days, Whitsunday and Martinmas, are often stipulated as days on which tenants take entry to or remove from the property being leased. Taken together the four days divide the Scottish legal year into four parts. Those quarter days are frequently used as the days on which tenants pay quarterly rents to the landlord.
The history of the development of term and quarter days, and the different dates that have been attached to them, is fascinatingly described in Part 2 of the Law Commision's report. I shall not now detain your Lordships with that story, interesting though it is. Noble Lords who are accustomed to handling such matters will know that history leaves us in Scotland with a problem. Currently there is no overall statutory definition of the term and quarter days. Different definitions are used for different purposes. That gives rise to some confusion and uncertainty for lawyers and for the rest of us. For example, there can be considerable disagreement about the precise date on which a particular lease begins or ends. The Bill seeks to clarify those matters.
Under Clause 1 it establishes a clearer, more logical set of dates. It defines Candlemas, Whitsunday, Lammas and Martinmas as falling on 28th February, 28th May, 28th August and 28th November respectively. That brings the term days, Whitsunday and Martinmas, into line with three current Acts; the Removal Terms (Scotland) Act 1886, the Argicultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, and the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955.
As regards the quarter days, the definitions in the Bill divide the year into quarter terms of equal length. That is far from the case at present. Under existing common law Candlemas is defined as 2nd February and Lammas as 1st August. Therefore, the quarters vary in length from 115 days to 65 days. Considerable inconvenience is caused, for example, when apportioning rents. The new definitions of quarter days falling on 28th of the month will make matters much simpler in that respect.
Clause 1 also provides that where existing leases use the traditional names and also specify a date other than that defined in the Bill—that is a date other than 28th of the month—the date specified will continue to be used. On the other hand, where an existing lease refers only to a term or quarter day by name the new definition of 28th will apply. But should a person have an interest in inserting another date a re-application to the sheriff can be made under the Bill for that purpose. As regards leases and agreements made after the Bill comes into force, the dates of term days and quarter days as defined in the Bill will apply—that is 28th of the month—unless a different date is specified.
Clause 2 provides that any notice given after the Act is passed but before it comes into force in relation to an existing lease which refers to term and quarter days but does not stipulate other dates shall be treated as though the Act had not been

375
passed. Rights and obligations existing before the Act will not be affected.
Clause 2 repeals also the Act of 1693, the only statute with which this Bill conflicts. In a way that is sad, and I understand that it is quite unusual for public legislation to repeal a Bill which is nearly 300 years old. Clause 3 states that the Act will not come into force until a year after it is passed and that it is confined to Scotland.
I hope that I have made clear the effects of the Bill. It is slightly more complicated than appears at first sight and I hope that your Lordships will consider it a sensible and worthwhile measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
8 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, this Bill removes certain anomalies which have existed in Scottish law for some time, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. Section 4, Chapter 50, of the Removal Terms (Scotland) Act 1886 states that the removal time, unless otherwise specified in the tenancy agreement, shall be noon on 28th May for Whitsunday and 28th November for Martinmas. Unfortunately, Chapter 40 of the Removings Act 1693 states that Whitsunday shall be in all time the 15th day of May. Candlemas has been 2nd February and Lammas, 1st August. That divides the year into uneven quarters.
This Bill repeals the 1693 Act and henceforth the quarter days will be on the 28th day of the respective month. I should add that the minimum notice for altering any rent agreement is 40 days before 15th May or 11th November under the said Section 4 of the 1886 Act which remains in force.
That is further confirmed by Section 37 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907. Where land is involved, the notice must be six months under Section 36 or 12 months under Section 35 of that Act. This Bill does not affect any rent agreement which commences or terminates on any other date such as the first day of the month, which of course should be written into the lease.
The Bill merely defines that Candlemas shall be on 28th February, Whitsunday on 28th May, Lammas on 28th August and Martinmas on 28th November in respect of any lease or agreement, and so on. There is provision for an appeal to a sheriff court.
I should like to record my thanks for the useful letter which I received from my noble friend Lord Sanderson and the care and thought which has been put into this Bill by my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the Scottish Law Commission. The Bill does not affect any religious days. It deserves your Lordships' full approval.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down to speak in this debate, but I shall be brief. I wish to support wholeheartedly the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Carnegy.
376
My interest arises from the fact that I live in an area where very often agricultural cottages or premises are let. It will be much simpler if the dates and days in the Bill, which have been clearly outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, are accepted. I do not believe that it will create any difficulty or cause harm to anybody. It will be extremely useful. I believe that it simplifies many matters. The way the Bill was put forward by my noble friend Lady Carnegy was quite brilliant and I am sure that all of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will support it.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support my noble neighbour on this Bill. It is very practical and useful. However, I regret the passing of an era because the term days used to mean a great deal in Scotland. On 28th May and 28th November farmers moved round the farms. It was not bad for the single farmers. They gained a lot of experience and took stories of the meanness of farmers around the whole area in a very happy way.
However, it was bad for the married men because when they moved the countryside was full of carts loaded up with furniture. The departure of that custom is good. It meant that they did not attend to the gardens and the children did not get a chance to stay at one school. To bring the situation up to date, as the noble Baroness has done, is absolutely right and will make matters simpler. My lawyer friends all tell me that the different dates are a nuisance. While I normally do not have much time for lawyers, they have their uses. Their work should be facilitated, thereby enabling them to reduce their fees. That would be good. I too commend the Bill.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are in agreement that the Bill is progressive. It repeals a 1693 Act. Therefore, we can all have faith in the idea of progress.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, will not be disappointed, because I believe we should clear up these problems. We all have a certain nostalgia for the old terms. However, someone from the city, like myself, was not very well acquainted with, for example, exactly when Michaelmas was. I always remember Black Michaelmas. That was the only thing I learnt from my history lessons. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was absolutely frank with himself because I do not believe it was necessarily a happy time when people were uprooted and had to move around.
I believe that the Bill is a very good compromise. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, raised a number of points which can be dealt with in Committee. We know that he looks through our Bills with great diligence and finds weaknesses which perhaps even the parliamentary draftsmen do not appreciate.
The Bill removed certain anomalies. The dates specified will continue to be used if necessary so that rights will not be affected if a specified date is in an old lease or document. However, it still allows flexibility which in time will lead to clarification of

377
any new definition of quarter days, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, explained admirably in her opening remarks. I hope that those definitions will ultimately become universal.
For a long time other dates have been used for the convenience of very old leases or rents. However, it is better that all of us know that Candlemas, Whitsunday, Lammas and Martinmas are all on the 28th day of the month. It makes my life a great deal easier when people ask me, particularly from south of the Border, what we really mean by Lammas. I am grateful for that alone, but generally it is an improvement to the existing law and I certainly give every support to the noble Baroness and the Second Reading of the Bill.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I rise to express both my own personal support for this Bill and that of my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government as a whole. I pay tribute to my noble friend for taking this opportunity to introduce this useful law reform measure and I congratulate her on an excellent and informative speech in moving the Second Reading of what should certainly be a welcome Bill.
The Scottish Law Commision, since its establishment in 1965, has made outstanding contribution to the development of Scots law. The report on the Scottish term and quarter days is an example of the sort of worthwhile modest reform that helps to keep the law relevant and useful; and there is a place for that in among the major law reform proposals which the commission produces.
The Bill will help to prevent confusion in the leasing and transfer of property, especially agricultural subjects. It will be to the benefit of both parties concerned in a transaction and their professional advisers. Noble Lords will of course note that the Bill prescribes the dates of the term and quarter days for legal purposes only, and it does not affect their use for other purposes such as denoting holidays or the Christian festivals associated with them. Nor does it interfere with specific dates already fixed in leases or agreements.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships by referring to the detail of the Bill, which is an admirably researched and thoroughly reasoned piece of legislation. The noble Baroness has already given a full exposition of the Bill's objectives and effects and I am confident that the House will approve of it on that basis.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. My noble friend Lord Balfour, with his usual assiduous attention to the detail of Bills, asked me a number of pertinent questions. He wrote to my noble friend Lord Sanderson, as he said, and received a reply which helped him and also helped me. We are very grateful for that.
378
I was glad that my noble friend Lady Elliot was pleased with the new arrangements. She has much experience in these matters and knows precisely how they work and the problems that the different dates can produce. It is excellent that she is pleased.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also understands the problems that can arise. He regrets the passing of the arrangements and I am bound to say so do I. However, I have to inform him that before 1693, when Whitsunday was a movable feast seven weeks after Easter, it was even more inconvenient than now. When Easter and Whitsunday were late, the tenant who was leaving had already used up the spring grass so that when the new tenant arrived there was nothing left for his cattle to eat. That was the reason Whitsunday was initially fixed at the 15th May. Things were therefore more difficult for farmers in the early days than they are now.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. He is quite right that it is proper that the flexibility remains under the Bill; that a different date to that of the terms and quarter days can be inserted if the parties so wish. That is an important feature and he was right to point that out.
Finally, I must thank my noble friend Lord Strathmore—he also knows and understands these matters personally—and the Government for their encouragement to my honourable friend the Member for Tayside North and myself. I also thank my noble friend Lord Sanderson, who is in his place on the Front Bench, for the help that his officials gave my honourable friend and I in the passage so far of the Bill.
I hope on hearing this debate and those explanations your Lordships will feel able to give the Bill a fair wind towards the statute book and will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Lord Mackie of Benshie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Humber: County Boundaries
8.16 p.m.
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take note of the local feelings, expressed on both sides of the Humber, that the original county boundaries should be reinstated.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order

379
Paper, I wish to draw attention to the continued unhappiness of my former constitutents. In 1974 half of them were just pitched into the County of Humberside. I also want to take the opportunity of reinforcing the concern which was recognised by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1989 when he instructed the Boundary Commission to review the position on Humberside. He went on to state publicly that the degree of unhappiness which persists 15 years after Humberside's creation caused him great concern. Further, he continued to express that the long-standing and strongly-held feelings of alienation were clearly coming through, even to his department.
At that point in 1989 the Secretary of State for the Environment charged the commission to carry out a further review of the Humberside area. He made it perfectly clear that the presumption against change was in fact removed. He further charged the commission to consider the radical option of dissolving the existing County of Humberside. That was clear. What was not clear was a subsequent clouding of the issue by the irrelevant questions subsequently posed by the Boundary Commission.
On 12th April 1989 the review started. It was charged with considering the abolition of the county; the re-creation of an East Yorkshire county north of the Humberside, and the re-creation of an all-Lancashire county to the south. The unhappy and unfortunate point, which is the cause of my Question tonight, is that on 7th March 1990 in an interim decision—it is only interim—the Boundary Commission came up with the suggestion that there should be no radical change.
That argument—and I say this after careful thought but I believe it is the general feeling—was a very arrogant argument; it was the argument of a second-rate local government civil servant. The commission went on to say that effective and convenient local government would be better served by the retention of the county. Convenient for whom? Convenient for my old constituent to go north of the Humber and pay £3·60 to cross the Humber bridge to register a birth or a death? That is not convenient local government.
It went on to say when it muffed this decision and produced the interim decision, that loyalty was expected to grow. I have not been in the area for around five years. The amazing fact is that loyalty to Humberside has not grown. It is amazing that here is a new county and nobody has warmed to it. It is something that is unnatural and does not appeal. The position in 1990 is exactly the same as it was in 1974.
Therefore, what has the Boundary Commission ignored, and ignored in the guidelines from the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State said clearly that it must consider the wishes of the local inhabitants, the pattern of community life and effective local government. I think it is the last point that has been highlighted by the question over the community charge. What do we have in Lincolnshire? The average community charge in most district councils is under £300—about £260 a head. What do we have in a profligate socialist area
380
like Humberside? That area has a community charge of close on £400 a head. That is what is meant by effective local government. I believe that that is the trigger which has ignited so much local opinion on this issue.
What has the Boundary Commission failed to recognise? It has failed to recognise that Humberside is an unnatural creation. I believe it has been described as an unloved bastard. Perhaps that is rather strong language, but that is the general feeling; it is an unloved bastard that no one has been prepared to adopt.
There has been the total failure of the Humber bridge. The bridge has not been a factor in uniting both sides of the Humber. It is far too expensive for anyone to travel over it and most people try to go round it. The two separate patterns of community life have not been recognised. The residents of my old constituency in South Humberside find themselves to be a minority in a population which is far removed from the seat of government.
I have already said that the Boundary Commission did a good job but it clouded the arguments by asking such questions as: what would you do with Hull? And: what should be done with this or that? That is not the point. The Boundary Commission was asked by the Secretary of State for the Environment to investigate why there was so much continued unhappiness. All the surveys show today that everyone recognises that the Humber is a natural barrier that, as such, should be recognised, and that the toll bridge does not unite either side of the Humber. Sixty-nine per cent. of the population agrees with both those points.
The noble Lord who is to wind up on the Opposition Benches is a great expert on statistics, and I think he will accept that all these statistics show quite clearly that seven out of 10 people who live on either side of the Humber want to see Humberside abolished. Half a million people cannot be wrong. I hope that when my noble friend replies to the Question he will make it perfectly clear that he is prepared to take note of the strong feelings that have been expressed and will give the Boundary Commission the necessary guts not to shy away from the last fence when it comes to its final report and therefore recommend clearly and firmly that the county boundaries should be restored to their original areas and that Lincolnshire should have everything south of the Humber. I shall leave it to my noble friends from north of the Humber to say what they want done on the north side. I know that everyone south of the Humber wants to return back to Lincolnshire.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Kimball. Way back in 1972 I put my name to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Middleton that the old East Riding of Yorkshire should not be merged into a new county of Humberside. At that time your Lordships did not accept our amendment and the message from the government of the time was, "Let's give Humberside a try".

381
We have been trying ever since, but I have to say that it has not worked. I live in North Humberside and I am very conscious of the lack of affinity with those living on the south bank. My noble friend Lord Kimball put the case clearly and fairly. As he told us, in another place he represented a constituency on the south bank and he explained the depth of feeling on that side of the River Humber. I need not tell your Lordships that Yorkshiremen are even more proud of their roots than are "yellowbellies".
We on this side of the House do not always accept opinion polls; but, for what they are worth, they show that over two-thirds of the people of Humberside would prefer to revert to East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Furthermore, I suspect that if the poll were phrased more fairly—I mean that; phrased more fairly—that percentage would be considerably increased.
I stress that there is no fragmentation of view from either party on either side of the river. From all the views that I have heard, the great majority of people, especially in North Humberside, favour Option 3; that is the reversion of South Humberside to Lincolnshire and the creation of a new East Yorkshire on the north bank. Even the Boundary Commission acknowledged as recently as 8th June that there is,
"strong support for Option 3".
I quote from a letter from the Boundary Commission dated 8th June—only last week. It states:
"In paragraph 102, it stated the view that the most feasible alternative to the present Humberside County Council is Option 3. Following the issue of the interim decision, many representations have been received, and most of these support Option 3.
That is the present position. I am sure you would agree that it would not be proper for us to anticipate the Commission's consideration of the response to the interim decision, beyond noting that the Commission is, of course, aware of the strong support for Option 3".
That quotation is from a letter from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to Mr. Doherty of Glanford Borough Council.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to take special heed of the previous Secretary of State's first guideline for the Boundary Commission, which was,
"whether" the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants".
To my mind, it quite clearly does not. The Government have made clear that the wishes of the majority of those who live in the Falklands, Gibraltar and in Northern Ireland will be upheld. Surely that should also apply to those who live in Humberside. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will make that point abundantly clear to the Secretary of State.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the first time I spoke in your Lordships' House was during the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill in 1972. I was probably out of order in being strongly critical of the proposal to abolish the East Riding of Yorkshire and to create a new county of Humberside astride the Humber.
On reorganisation my own part of the East Riding was transferred into North Yorkshire, but I have
382
sympathy with the many objectors to Humberside, to whom my noble friends have referred and whose complaints have prompted the Government to refer the matter to the Boundary Commission, as my noble friend Lord Kimball reminded us.
The commission began its review of Humberside in 1985. It adopted the guidelines to which my noble friend Lord Kimball has referred. If a case was to be made for altering the boundaries of the county, three criteria needed to be satisfied: first, that the boundary accorded with the wishes of the local inhabitants; secondly, that it reflected the pattern of community life; and, thirdly, that the boundary was conducive to the effective operation of local government and associated services.
The commission reported in 1988 that,
"there must come a point at which longstanding and strongly held feelings of alienation towards an Authority on the part of a large number of its residents must in themselves call for a re-examination of the justification of its existence".
However, the commission felt that that point had not been reached and made no recommendation for any significant change.
Nevertheless, a great many people, as we have heard, remained unhappy and dissatisfied. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Kimball said, the Secretary of State directed a further review last year and the Boundary Commission reported again last March. I have read the interim report. The same guidelines are adopted. It is clear, either explicitly from the text of the report or implicitly from the Boundary Commission's research survey, that the first two criteria are not satisfied: the one requiring local acceptability and the other requiring a common pattern of community life.
As regards the third criterion of whether the boundary was conducive to the effective operation of local government, the Boundary Commission took the view that Humberside does provide what it calls,
"a suitable framework for effective and convenient Local Government".
Once again, therefore, no change was recommended despite a clear indication of local feelings. For that reason the situation seems unsatisfactory. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball that note should be taken of these feelings and that the boundaries should be looked at again. I ask this time for a less complicated approach.
I believe it was right to look at various alternative rearrangements of the boundaries. But it must have made the task of the Boundary Commission very complex. Furthermore, consideration of the six options must have made it difficult and confusing for those responding to the public opinion tests. Therefore, I believe that in any new re-examination all options should be cast aside except two. The first is the status quo; the second the proposal that emerges clearly as most acceptable to the majority of the inhabitants, namely, that the present North Humberside and Hull should become a new county of East Yorkshire, retaining the existing land boundaries, and that South Humberside should rejoin its home county of Lincolnshire. As my noble friend Lord Manton has reminded us, that is the solution which the Boundary Commission concluded in the interim report was the only realistic

383
alternative to the present county. It is also the alternative which would be the least expensive to set up and the cheapest to adminster.
In any case, in any further consideration of the boundaries, what has to be considered most carefully is whether the present arrangement or the preferred alternative provides the most efficient local government administration. That seems to be the crucial test on which any decision to alter the boundaries must be made.
The opinion of Humberside County Council must be taken into account. It made a powerful case to the Boundary Commission for keeping Humberside, using good local government arguments. However, I have read a submission by the same county council to an inquiry under the Humber Bridge Act, arguing that while tolls continued to be levied on the Humber Bridge the administration of a county astride the Humber would be difficult.
Counsel representing the county council at the inquiry said:
"The purpose of the Bridge is two-fold—integration of the new County and regeneration of an area which in the past has not been attractive to developers".
Counsel continued:
"Any tolls defeat to some extent the twin objectives of integration and regeneration. Tolls place a heavy burden on the County Council in its administration".
The past chairman of Humberside County Council is reported as saying last year that at a time when the council was fighting hard for its existence, it still had to contend with the biggest artificial barrier to its success as a unified county. He said:
"We must fight the Government for the complete abolition of tolls on the Humber Bridge, for until we win the fight the Humber Bridge might just as well be a brick wall for all it does to link the two halves of the County".
I understand that the Government have announced that no such abolition of tolls is contemplated. The opinion of the Lincolnshire authorities too must be taken into account. There are strong arguments advanced, notably from the Lincolnshire County Council and the Glandford Borough Council, that local government administration would be more effective and cost-efficient south of the Humber under the preferred alternative arrangement.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Manton that a new review might well look again at what the Boundary Commission itself said about local government administration under Option 3; namely, the preferred alternative of an East Yorkshire county and an enlarged Lincolnshire divided by the Humber. In paragraph 102 of its interim report the commission stated:
"If there was any option likely to bring about more effective and convenient Local Government in Humberside, this would be Option 3".
In paragraph 110 the commission said:
"The Commission considers that, to the extent that traditional loyalty to a county might help to make Local Government more effective and convenient, there could be a case for reverting to the nearest available equivalent to the re-creation of the old counties. This would be Option 3".
Then, having reached the brink of a decision, in the words of my noble friend Lord Kimball, it refused
384
the last fence and backed away by saying that it would all come right in the end.
The next point to be considered is the weight that the Boundary Commission gives to the concept of a local government area covering both sides of an estuary. In the days when I sat on a body called the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, it was accepted doctrine that you should have a planning authority that covered the whole of an estuary; for instance, Merseyside, Tyneside and Teesside.
I remember that the Redcliffe-Maud report recommended no such thing for Humberside and recognised the Humber as a barrier so far as local government administration was concerned. In any case, the more recent devolution of planning functions from counties to districts must make such a concept wholly out of date.
The question of cost is important. The Arup survey commissioned by the Boundary Commission produced a figure of £10.7 million as an estimated cost of setting up the preferred alternative. Although that is the least expensive of the various options, it is not cheap.
Against that, I do not know what stage the Humberside County Council's plans for improving the administrative infrastructure of the present county has reached, but I am informed that plans have been at any rate discussed which, if implemented, would exceed £10.7 million by a considerable amount.
As regards cost, my Yorkshire blood warmed to the editor of the Hull Daily Mail when he wrote in his newspaper:
"There is a price to be paid for ridding the Nation of Humberside. If local people care that future generations should be able to boast that they too are Yorkshire born and bred, it is worth paying".
I believe that more evidence should be taken from industry and commerce. I am not altogether happy about the rather vague reference in the interim report to "commercial and port organisations".
Finally, the question must be considered: what evidence is there to back the Boundary Commission's optimism about the future effective operation of local government in an area which, in the commission's words, produces such long-standing and strongly-held feelings of alienation and which produces such lack of loyalty and identity? These seem to me to be some of the matters that should be looked at in any further examination of the case for altering the boundaries of Humberside to the preferred alternative of an East Yorkshire county and a re-united Lincolnshire.
8.39 p.m.
The Earl of Gainsborough: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who is a long-standing friend. He represented the constituency of Gainsborough which my forebears had some connection with many years ago at the time of the civil wars. In addition, I have some experience of local government. I was president of one of the local authority associations, which gave

385
me reason to travel around a great deal in both England and Wales.
It is true to say that the Local Government Act that brought in Humberside—I had better not mention Rutland, because I come from there—and which affected other parts of the country, was not a popular measure. There are still rumblings about that legislation all over the country, even down in Avon where it is also disliked. I know that it is not liked in Lincolnshire and in Yorkshire—one must not call it Humberside. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Yarborough would agree with me on that point.
I can certainly support what was said by noble Lords in that corner of the House where there seems to be a strong faction. People in the area do not wish to see this situation perpetuated. They wish to see a return to the former position. I hope very much, and I understand that there may be reason to think, that the noble Lord. Lord Hesketh, will be able to say something encouraging. That would be much appreciated by the people whose views have been represented by noble Lords opposite.
8.40 p.m.
The Earl of Halifax: My Lords, many of your Lordships are far better qualified than I to know whether the present Humberside county boundaries are conducive to effective and convenient local government. Unlike my noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Gisborough, I know very little about local government but I reckon to know what local folk feel.
As has already been indicated, Research Surveys of Great Britain conducted a survey on behalf of the local boundary commission towards Humberside in which 2,918 residents over 18 were questioned. Of those residents, 63 per cent. were not in favour of the county of Humberside continuing as it is at present They wanted some kind of change, including a name change. Moreover, the survey showed that only 25 per cent. think of themselves as belonging to Humberside. More in North Humberside think of themselves as Yorkshire people and more in the south as Lincolnshire people. Clearly the matter cannot be held over for yet another review in 16 years' time. There is strong evidence from the newspapers, telephone polls, Harris polls, surveys and so an that the public wishes to see something done now.
My purpose today is to say to noble Lords that if they want to keep in touch with what local people think about local matters, then surely they owe it to the people in Humberside and Lincolnshire to listen to their views. Indeed, the then Minister with responsibility for local government said in Bridlington on 19th March 1989:
"the people must be listened to—that is what local government is about".
The performance of Humberside County Council is not the issue. If the function of government, national and local, is to mirror the wishes of the people, t hen the expedient solution is to rename the county—East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire. It
386
will be argued that a great deal of time, effort and money have been expended on creating an identity for Humberside. That will not go to waste. People who have expressed an interest in investing in Humberside will not turn away simply because of a name change. Without the name Humberside, the area is no less attractive to visitors or investors. In fact, there is a strong case to be made for the opposite point of view.
It would be sad if people saw nothing happening and had their existing scepticism about local government confirmed. We all need to belong somewhere—and where we in Yorkshire belong is Yorkshire.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, a strong tide of public opinion against the existing boundaries has already been underscored by a number of noble Lords, notably by the previous speaker. It is worth remembering that this is nothing new. Public opinion has always been against the idea of Humberside. That has certainly been the case south of the Humber where I live. I remember seeing opinion polls in Lincolnshire newspapers on more than one occasion many years ago.
Only in the far north-west corner of the county near Goole was public opinion divided approximately fifty-fifty. This was because the Humber narrows considerably at that point to become the Ouse. It is only here that there is a certain amount of va et vient between the two sides. But the farther east one travels from that small corner the more "anti" people become, which is hardly surprising as the Humber estuary is one of the widest in the world. One might as well put Basildon and Rochester, or Canterbury and Southend, into the same county. As a matter of fact, the distance between Southend and Canterbury is about the same as that between Beverley and Grimsby.
How did this state of affairs come about? One must attribute it to the follies of that extraordinary decade, the 1960s. In psychological and sociological terms the 1960s ran from about mid-1962 to the end of 1973. One remembers well the architects of the 1960s, albeit mainly transatlantic ones, seriously forecasting that before the end of the 20th century most of the people of the industrialised world would be living—and happily living, what is more—in tower blocks 200 storeys high, with shopping centres on the 40th, 80th, 120th and 160th floors, and with miniature parks on the roof. Presumably the wind force was never expected to rise above 1 on the Beaufort scale.
More germane to this discussion, economists and others in the 1960s were forecasting that a generation hence, which is about now, most of us would be working not in service industries, as is in fact the case, but in manufacturing industry, living in giant conurbations, working in giant factories operating for 24 hours a day—with the workers on permanent shift systems, with shops, banks, restaurants, cafés and public transport also operating for 24 hours a day to cater for these producers of a never-ending stream of semi-durable consumer goods. It was this

387
misreading of the future that was responsible for the preposterous notion of a giant conurbation straddling a three-mile wide estuary.
Doubtless some of the forecasts made today of the position in the years 2010 to 2020 will also be wide of the mark, but rarely, I think, to the same degree. With that in mind, restoring the original county boundaries would not be an exercise in reactionary nostalgia but an acknowledgement of present-day realities. Up to now there has been one small snag—that the Cabinet contained a Minister who was closely associated with the formation of Humberside and similar artificial new counties. However, the individual in question has now left the Cabinet, so that is no longer a problem.
When this Government first came to power they were, unlike some of their predecessors, very much in tune with the feelings and instincts of the people. There have been disquieting indications recently that the Government may somewhat have lost touch with the public mood. However, action to restore the old county boundaries, by marrying common sense and economic realism to the wishes of the vast majority of the people of the region, would prove to the sceptics that the Government have regained the sensitive touch that they once had.
8.49 p.m.
The Earl of Yarborough: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Kimball introduced this Question. I declare an interest in that not only do I live in North Lincolnshire, but my family estates cross the boundary into Humberside. I am neither one thing nor the other.
The thrust of the Unstarred Question is that we want to do away with the Humber as a natural barrier, which quite clearly it is, and bring Lincolnshire up to it and Yorkshire down to it. Something that cannot be altered is the Humber. Humberside is bound to be a divided county so long as it spans the river. The bridge does not signify much. It is only a tenuous link.
I have some figures which may be of interest. Only about 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. of people in the area use the bridge regularly to go to school or college or something of that sort; 25 per cent. consider that they belong to Humberside; 75 per cent. feel strongly that they belong to Yorkshire; 60 per cent. feel strongly that they belong to Lincolnshire; 35 per cent. of the people involved do not use the bridge; and 64 per cent. find it of not much use or no use. It will take something more than a bridge to unite the county of Humberside.
The only sensible thing to do is to go back to more or less where we were. I shall be only brief because other noble Lords have covered the ground extremely well. I shall speak from the point of view of the south bank only. There are three criteria for guidance to the Boundary Commission and they have been quoted. The first is that the boundary should be approved by the local inhabitants. The commission's report agrees that the majority of people are not in favour of Humberside. The second criteria is that the boundary should reflect the pattern of community life. Interestingly enough,
388
Lincolnshire County Council produced a list of no fewer than 75 organisations which ignore South Humberside and operate, as they did before, up to the south bank of the river. They were largely involved in leisure and community activities, including of course the Church. The Diocese of Lincoln extends, as it always has, up to the south bank of the river. The same applies to the other denominations—the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptists and the Methodists. That must be a clear indication that the value of Humberside is not considered to be high when it comes to community interests.
Noble Lords have already mentioned the third criterion: effective local government. The report refers mostly to effective and convenient local government. As my noble friend Lord Kimball asked: convenient for whom? Is it for the administrators or the administered? When I read the report, I could not help feeling that it perhaps gave undue weight to the views of local authorities. I can understand that. They have had a hard row to hoe, and most of them have worked hard to make the administration work, having, unfortunately been landed with it for reasons which have already been put before your Lordships.
One gained the impression that the Boundary Commission listened too much to local government officials. They understandably wanted their efforts to be seen in the best light. I can understand that. If the commission did not do that it is difficult to understand how they arrived at the conclusion that there should be no change because two out of the three criteria have been met. The third, the effectiveness and cost of local government, is a matter of some doubt, because there was insufficient information available to enable it to reach a firm conclusion.
I found it a surprising conclusion for the commission to have arrived at in view of what it had said previously. There are pressure groups. A campaign was run in Humberside on behalf of NALGO, which was afraid that its members would lose their jobs. Of course it is proper and legitimate for trade unions to consider their members. The interesting point is that the unions said that if Lincolnshire were to take over South Humberside, its members would all lose their jobs because an efficient set-up already existed and they would not be needed. The implication is that the existing organisation might be rather more efficient and cost-effective, but that is by the way.
Most of the ground has already been covered; but thanks to Mr. Ridley, when he was Secretary of State involved with these matters, the whole issue was referred back to the Boundary Commission for further consideration and report. I am grateful to him for doing that. There is now a window of hope open for all those people, both north and south of the river, who so badly want to return to more or less where they were. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some further encouragement in that direction, because I believe that it is the only way to produce a contented county and one that is at ease with itself. As has been said, the area had been used to looking south to

389
Lincolnshire. It feels split up and disintegrated at the moment. If we could return to having a county which went up only to the Humber as before, it would bring a great deal of happiness to the majority of those who live there.
8.56 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for asking this Question. My noble friend and I share a concern for the countryside as well as an interest in a well-known financial institution in the City of London. Until now I had not thought that I would be drawn to his side on the issue of county boundaries.
My interest in the debate is more historical than one of a contemporary geographical and political nature. My ancestor, Robert Bertie, Baron Willoughby de Eresby, held office as Lord High Admiral of England and hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain of England. He was created The Earl of Lindsey in 1626 and was mortally wounded at the battle of Edgehill in 1642 while in command of a division of the King's Army.
Before succeeding to the title, the fourth Earl was a Member of Parliament and subsequently Lord Lieutenant of Lincolnshire. He was later created Marquess of Lindsey and Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven, all in the county of Lincolnshire. I shall not try to explain to your Lordships this evening how those titles subsequently disappeared.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Carelessness, my Lords.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, perhaps I may turn briefly to my other namesake: the town of Abingdon, where as High Steward and therefore ex officio on the borough council I experienced receiving petitions from some local inhabitants. Here was a borough in its own right, incorporated in 1556, which became, for administrative convenience and encouraged by central government, a mere parish. Before the arrival of the railways in the middle of the last century, Abingdon was the county town of the Royal County of Berkshire. It is now reduced to a non-representative parish in the county of Oxford.
I could give more such examples, such as Hereford and Worcester. That redrawing of county boundaries by a Conservative Government in the 1970s was a bad administrative mistake.
Like noble Lords who have spoken previously this evening, I ask my noble friend to give serious consideration to requesting his fellow Ministers to reincorporate North Humberside into the East Riding of Yorkshire and South Humberside into Lindsey in the Country of Lincolnshire.
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, it may seem a little the strange for a bishop of a see so far away from the area in question as Chichester to intervene in the debate. However, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln is not a Member of your Lordships' House. I am a Lincolnshire man, born
390
just outside Grimsby, educated at Brigg Grammar School, a member of the Lincoln Records Society, one of those societies which still goes right up to the Humber. I also happen to own a house in Yorkshire, so I know something about the area.
I wish to add my voice to those of other noble Lords on the matter. I do not believe that the Humber Bridge has made much difference to the situation. I cross it from time to time but it is not an effective link between Hull and Grimsby. One has to go quite a long way from those towns to reach the bridge. When I was a boy we used to go to the pantomime in Hull. We crossed the Humber by paddle boat and one of those we used in order to get to Hull is now moored in the Thames, the "Tattershall Castle". That was at least as quick as going across the Humber Bridge and all the way round the two coasts. I do not believe that the Humber Bridge has reinforced the links at all.
Whenever I go to see my family and others in what is now South Humberside, and when I am in Yorkshire, I am well aware of the strength of feeling against this division of the two counties. Very few other counties in England have so strong a county feeling as that which is found in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. This came out very much in the debate, and I hope that we shall be given some encourging news.
9.2 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have listened to a fascinating debate with a good deal of sympathy and close attention. The arguments put forward—which I note have been all in one direction—have two strong strikes in their favour so far as I am concerned. First, to have unanimity of feeling on the Government Back-Benches against the actions of a previous Conservative Government can only give me pleasure. In addition, there has been the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, whose attitude to the Government can best be compared with that of the John Birch Society to the Reagan Administration. He thinks that this Government are crypto-socialist and anti-libertarian. He is an opponent of the Government in many ways from the Right, although, of course, his opinions are his own and he is completely independent.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord speaks in jest. However, if he looks up some recent Division Lists, he may have cause to retract his words.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble Lord votes against the Government from all directions. I believe that he would agree that that is probably the case. I have never accused him, and I was not then accusing him, of being a slavish adherent of the Government.
Much more important is the feeling that noble Lords have expressed and which I strongly share that local government should be recognised as being local. It should be as local as possible: in other words, it should be small and close to the people whenever

391
possible. I am sentimental about some of the anomalies of past local government structure. I like the idea of the county of Rutland surviving. I am sorry to see that the address of the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, is Oakham, Leicestershire, instead of being—as it ought—Oakham, Rutland. I like the idea of the county of Lincoln being divided into Kesteven, Holland and Lindsey. I beg the noble Earl's pardon. To lose a dukedom and a marquisate and to be left with only two earldoms seems like carelessness, even though it took a number of centuries to do it!
I like all the other anomalies which should be preserved. I do not mind the anomalies of the Inns of Court. The right reverend Prelate may be surprised to hear that I do not even mind the anomaly of Ely Place; which is still, I understand, ecclesiastical territory, although sited in the London borough of Camden. The only example that I am totally against is the Corporation of the City of London, but that is for financial and political reasons rather than for reasons of sentimentality. In any case, the City of London only needs to be modified by making its electorate democratic, representing the whole of London. It needs no other changes so far as I am concerned.
In many ways I am sympathetic to the arguments put forward. However, I have another point of view which outweighs that sympathy. I speak as someone who has been involved in local government over a number of years. For heaven's sake, once we have a structure, almost any structure is better than continuous interference with it. I blame the Conservative Government in the 1960s and again in the 1970s. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to have a curious idea of what the 1960s were. He defines them as being mid-1962 to the end of 1973.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord yet again but I was speaking of the "'sixties" in inverted commas, not without inverted commas.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I realised that it was a social rather than a chronological comment. However, it is also an interesting social comment because the noble Lord is lumping together—if I may put it politically—the Prime Ministerships of the noble Lords, Lord Home of the Hirsel and Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and Mr. Edward Heath as if there were something in common between the three of them and different from administrations before and afterwards. I find that quite curious and interesting.
Nevertheless, it is true that the two major upheavals in local government that have taken place since the war and indeed in this century took place under Conservative Governments in the 1960s and 1970s. Noble Lords opposite may have resisted certain aspects of them at the time but they sustained the governments which brought them forward. Having been a member of one of the new London boroughs created in 1964 and 1965, I know very well the cost of the upheaval involved and that the borough for which I was a councillor—the borough of Haringey—had a totally created name. The
392
boroughs of Hornsey, Wood Green and Tottenham were perfectly well recognised. I speak as a former chairman and present president of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils when I say that the boroughs that were created were too big as regards many aspects of local government administration. It is Conservative governments who, throughout the past 20 or 30 years, have been responsible for the changes. They have carried out the changes on the fallacious argument that local government, like big business, has to be large in order to survive and be efficient. I believe we are paying the price of that now.
Having said that, I do not think the case has been adequately made against Humberside County Council. Noble Lords have referred to opinion polls that show opposition to the existing Humberside County Council. I believe I am talking about the same opinion polls that have been mentioned. According to those polls it is certainly true that those in favour of Humberside County Council with or without a name change accounted for only 36 per cent. of the population of the area. That means that some 60 per cent. were against it. The trouble is that no greater number of people were in favour of any specific alternative although a number of alternatives were offered.
Noble Lords have referred to the alternative of an enlarged Lincolnshire and a new East Yorkshire county which would have roughly the North Humberside boundaries. The trouble with that proposal is that it was only approved by 35 per cent. of the population of the area. That is a marginally smaller percentage than those who approved of the existing situation. If we are talking about change, we must be clear that the alternative which is being proposed is not more popular than the existing Humberside County Council.
I recognise that it is difficult for the Humberside County Council to be loved as being a place where Lincolnshire people and Yorkshire people live. I fully appreciate that. I suggest that there is a case to be made out for the existence of the Humberside County Council. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, referred to the case before the Boundary Commission being a powerful one. He referred to his membership of the Yorkshire and Humberside economic planning region. The noble Lord rightly said that in all other parts of the country both sides of an estuary are considered to have an economic unity. I would add that however seldom a bridge may be used by some local people it nevertheless forms an economic link, particularly for freight transport. It also performs a useful function in bringing the two sides together.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I should point out that I said that that concept was totally out of date.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord said that. However, I think he is wrong. If one looks at the work of the Humberside County Council in attracting business to the neighbourhood, in preparing for 1992, and its existence as part of a travel to work area—there is

393
a travel to work facility across the Humber bridge although only a minority of the population use it—one would accept that it is pressure by Humberside County Council that has led to any improvements that have occurred as regards linking Humberside to the rest of the country in economic terms, in terms of jobs and in terms of communications. It would be a great pity if that were to be thrown away.
The arguments on many other matters may be more finely balanced. I certainly do not wish to repudiate those in my party both in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire who feel strongly that Humberside County Council is an unnecessary tier of authority. However, I would strongly argue against unilateral action by the Government to change a single set of boundaries at this time without a more far-reaching and much more sympathetic review of the meaning of foul government boundaries in the 1990s and beyond.
If we have to consider local authority boundaries at all, we should be looking for single-tier authorities. The proposals which noble Lords are urging on the Government would retain two-tier authorities and changes would be made in one area of the country alone. Much as I love small authorities and our historic past I believe that to start a process of piecemeal changes in local authority boundaries can only lead to a disturbance of the continuity and good management of local government. I should regret it if the Minister were too sympathetic to the arguments put forward.
9.13 p m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the short answer to the Question of my noble friend Lord Kimball is "of course". However, to understand what is meant when we say that Her Majesty's Government will take note of local views about Humberside it is necessary to consider three distinct matters. I shall attempt to deal with each in turn. The first is the general question of the relationship of Her Majesty's Government to the Local Government Boundary Commission. The second is the way in which the present situation has developed, and the third is the scope for action by Her Majesty's Government. I begin therefore by trying to explain the present arrangements for the review of local government boundaries and the respective roles of the Local Government Boundary Commission and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
In 1972, an era described by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as the contemporary Dark Ages, Parliament provided for major reorganisation of local government. At the same time, to prevent local government boundaries being inappropriate as a result of changes in population and development and to review the detail of the boundaries on which Parliament then decided, a new system of reviewing local government boundaries was set up.
Changes can only be made after a review in which the public are given wide opportunities to express
394
their views. Changes can only be made if they are recommended by the independent, expert Local Government Boundary Commission. The changes can only come into force as a result of an order made by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
There are two points to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention tonight. First, unless the commission makes a recommendation the Secretary of State has no power to act. There is no possibility of unilateral action by the Secretary of State as suggested by the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh. Parliament clearly did not intend the Secretary of State to be able to redraw boundaries as he thinks fit. There must be a positive recommendation from the independent commission before he can act.
Secondly, when he decides to implement a report of the commission his powers are limited to implementing what the commission recommends, with or without modification. Clearly any modification must be simply a modification of what is recommended and not something completely different.
The Local Government Act 1972 does not therefore make it possible for Her Majesty's Government to change a local authority boundary simply because they think that it should be changed. The Act, however, enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the commission on the approach to be followed within the statutory requirements. The general guidance on the review of county boundaries has been that abolition of a county council should only be considered where the current arrangements are clearly failing to provide adequate local government services.
I now turn to my second point, which is what has happened in respect of Humberside itself. In the case of the review of the county of Humberside, the commission reported to my right honourable friend's predecessor in July 1988. The report proposed minor changes only to the county boundary. The commission acknowledged the representations it had received urging the abolition of the county, but found that no case had been made to it that the present arrangements failed to provide effective and convenient local government. Whether or not present arrangements provide effective and convenient local government is the touchstone which the 1972 Act, which is the law, requires the commission to use when considering whether or not to recommend change.
Following receipt of the report my right honourable friend's predecessor received something of the order of 7,000 representations from members of the public and from local organisations telling him that the county of Humberside should be abolished. In view of this strength of feeling, he decided to take no action on the commission's report but directed it to carry out a further review—an option which the Act gives to the Secretary of State. At the same time he set aside the guidelines previously issued, in the case of this review only. He did so, in view of the representations he had received, in order that the commission should be free in examining any proposals and could conduct the review in as wide-ranging a manner as it felt appropriate.

395
Furthermore, he gave to the commission the guidance that it should study the radical option of dissolving the county of Humberside in the light of possible alternative arrangements, taking particular account of the costs and benefits of the alternatives as compared with maintaining the present position and the sense of identity and loyalty which they might engender.
While it is not open to the Secretary of State to prescribe alternatives to be studied by the commission, my right honourable friend's predecessor suggested that in addition to the option of maintaining the present position the two alternative options which, prima facie, were most deserving of examination were, first, to add the areas north of the Humber to the county of North Yorkshire and the areas south of the Humber to Lincolnshire; or, alternatively, to make the areas north of the Humber into a separate county of East Yorkshire (with or without some adjacent parts of North Yorkshire) and to add the areas south of the Humber to Lincolnshire.
The commission employed consultants to examine the costs and benefits of the alternative options for the future of Humberside. On 7th March the commission published its interim conclusions. These are that while the only realistic option would be a new county of East Yorkshire and an enlarged Lincolnshire, that alternative would be no better able to provide effective and convenient local government than the present Humberside County Council.
Change would, the commission says, cause disruption for no clear benefit to the local government. In its letter setting out those conclusions, the commission said that it recognised that traditional loyalties are deeply felt towards Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. It also said that the results of the very extensive surveys carried out for it, as well as the individual representations which it had received, show deep uncertainty about what should replace Humberside. There was no consensus, it said.
Those are the commission's interim conclusions. The commission is now considering the responses that it has received to those interim conclusions before it makes its final report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
By statute, the commission has to publish its draft conclusions and to make sure that the public have an opportunity to comment. Clearly, the statute means that the commission will have to take account of the public's views. In addition, the guidance given to the commission by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State lays heavy emphasis on the importance of the views of those affected.
Finally, the statute requires that the commission addresses itself to making proposals that are in the interests of effective and convenient local government.
I have no doubt that comment has been flooding into the commission on this question. The stream which has come to the Department of Environment,
396
and which we have passed on to the commission, has itself been substantial.
I am quite sure that the commission will be as well aware as your Lordships that no arrangements for the discharge of local government functions can be termed effective and convenient if those arrangements do not have the general support of the local inhabitants. "Convenient and effective to whom?" must be the question uppermost in the minds of the commission members when they consider those matters.
Some of the comments come to me as well. In case anyone should think that this is a matter of interest only to the older generation, I have to tell your Lordships that only a few days ago I was sent a petition organised and signed by school children in Beverley. They told me that it is not true, as has been said, that young people have got used to Humberside. They told me that I had not researched the matter properly. That may well be true, but the intimation and the signatures bore witness. This, too, I am happy to draw to the commission's attention. I have no doubt that the commission will discharge fully its statutory duty and consider that mass of public comment.
We come to the third theme—the scope for action by the Government. At present, there is literally no action that the Government can take. The limits for action will be set by the report of the commission: if it recommends no changes, then the legislation does not permit any change to be made.
Since Parliament has made the commission an independent body and required the Secretary of State primarily to consider what it recommends, your Lordships will understand that I am unable today to comment on the issues involved or to comment on the interim conclusions that the commission has reached. To do so might appear to prejudge the questions which Parliament has required the Government to consider only in the light of the commission's final report.
I am, though, very well aware of the loyalty that people feel to their place of birth and the area in which they live. There is a strong emotional attachment, a sense of springing from and belonging to an identifiable place and a consciousness that they are, as their forebears were before them, bound up with the history of that place and with its place in the history of our country. It is part of their soul.
I am well aware that a person's soul cannot be changed by the re-drawing of lines on the map. Names of places, loyalties and the souls of Yorkshire men and Lincolnshire yellowbellies are not changed to suit the requirements of local government, nor should they be.
Whatever the outcome of the review, the historic areas of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire will not be changed. Parliament has provided, in the form of the Local Government Boundary Commission, a mechanism whereby local authority areas can be reviewed from time to time. I stress "local authority areas". That is what the commission, a statutory body independent of this Government and of all governments, must concern themselves with—not

397
the less tangible, and possibly more important, historic areas that make up the nation and its history.
The commission will, I am sure, give full weight to the views expressed to it, and in particular to the views expressed tonight. In its general report People and Places it says:
"The commission invariably pays careful regard to whether or not a boundary accords with the wishes of local people".
I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for giving those of your Lordships who have spoken the opportunity to give their views. I was interested, as always, to hear the views of my noble friend and Yorkshireman Lord Middleton, whose point of view and position with regard to Humberside have remained consistent for some 18 summers in your Lordships' House, as well as the views of the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, who clearly feels that people living in Humberside have been dealt a poor hand. We are also grateful to the right reverend Prelate, who added a further dimension to the debate in the House tonight. I shall personally ensure that this expression of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire views—I mention them alphabetically in order not to be accused of any bias—is drawn to the attention of the commission.
House adjourned at twenty seven minutes past nine o'clock.

  ECOFIN COUNCIL, 11TH JUNE
  ECOFIN COUNCIL, 11TH JUNE
  BST IN COWS' MILK: RESEARCH
  BST IN COWS' MILK: RESEARCH
  EC BANK ACCOUNTS DIRECTIVE
  EC BANK ACCOUNTS DIRECTIVE