Sitting of 29 June 1990

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

Disabled People
9.34 am
Mr. John Bowis: I wish to call attention to the need to promote opportunity for the disabled, and I beg to move,
That this House pays tribute to the achievements of people with disabilities and to the dedication of individuals and organisations that support them; welcomes the measures taken by the Government, by local government, by health, education, training and transport agencies and authorities and by many employers, to enable people to overcome or cope with their disabilities; believes that, whenever feasible, users of facilities and services for disabled people should be involved in decisions affecting the running of them; and calls on the Government to find ways of expanding opportunity for and removing obstacles to personal achievement and fulfilment by people of all ages and all types and degrees of disability.
I am grateful to the powers, wherever they are, that enable me to bring forward this topic for debate this morning. The powers may be on this earth, although I suspect that they are further up. They sort out the lottery that enables an hon. Member to come number one in the ballot for private Members' motions. I am delighted that it is possible to have this debate.
I have received two apologies from hon. Members who are unable to be present today. They are the heavenly twins who run the all-party group on the disabled: the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who is today at a conference for the deaf and dumb at Gatwick and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) who has engagements in the west country. Other hon. Members have expressed their regret that they cannot be here today because it is a Friday and they have long-standing engagements in their diary. I understand that, as I am sure that the House does. I hope that the wider public understand that we are here in quality, if not in numbers, on this smallish stage.
I welcome my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who have come to support the debate. I welcome the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). We know and respect his long service for disabled people, and his experience and knowledge of the subject of our debate. I am delighted that he has found time to speak for the Opposition today on this topic.
I especially welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He has just changed his title, appropriately, to include the words "disabled people" which acknowledges that we are concerned with people. His reputation needs no embellishment by me. As one goes round the country, one meets many disabled people and those who look after the disabled who refer to my right hon. Friend in glowing terms, and who appreciate the care and devotion that he gives to the subject. I am especially pleased that he is speaking for the Government today and I am sure that he
596
will speak for disabled people in all aspects, rather than in just the benefit aspects of disability. It would be difficult to have a motion for and on behalf of disabled people that concentrated specifically on benefits and did not look beyond to the wider aspects. My motion seeks to look at the whole person, the whole opportunity, all the obstacles that need to be removed and all the support that needs to be given to enable people to live life to the full and to contribute to our society.
I hope that this will not be seen as a rather sombre, long-faced debate in which people speak in hushed tones. I know that disabled people are not long faced and sombre, and they do not speak in hushed tones. We should first celebrate the achievements of so many disabled people and then see how we can enable them to go on achieving. We must also discuss how those who have not yet been able to achieve can be given the opportunity to do so.
This is not a debate in which we shall say, "There but for the grace of God go I." In the football terminology prevalent at the moment, we should be saying, "Here we go, here we go, here we go." Disabled people are making progress and, with a bit of support from the House and the country as a whole, they will continue to do so.
I want to celebrate the achievements of disabled people past, present and future, because undoubtedly there are many more to come. Every day, new obstacles are removed to enable those with disabilities to go one step further.
Let us look at the drama that is unfolding here this morning. It is perhaps a somewhat intimate theatre given the cast that is assembled, but it is no less important for that. Hon. Members, however, are not the stars of our drama; the stars are disabled people themselves. We are not the supporting cast either because that is made up of carers—the people and organisations who do so much to support those with disabilities. If we have a role, it is as stage managers—Opposition Members may say sceneshifters—who work together to provide the scenery and enable the stars and their supporting casts to perform. Our script is the script ordained by Parliament and our audience is the great British and international public. We invite that public to share in the catharsis that takes place in the theatre—the tears and pleasures, the laughter and the joy. At the end of the performance they may perhaps give an ovation to the stars of the drama—those wonderful disabled people—for all that they have achieved. To complete the theatrical allusion, we must look for one or two theatrical angels from among the members of the watching public and the Government, to ensure that future productions live up to expectations.
Disabled people are not moaners. They are people of great courage, determination and humour. It is a pleasure to work with them, both individually and in organisations. All the disabled people to whom I have spoken have shown a cheerfulness and generosity of spirit that are not always as evident among other parts of the community. We should recognise and reflect that in our debate. Disabled people have an abiding pride in their achievements. Disabilities do not disappear, but they do not have to prevent someone from living life to the full. Our task should be to encourage that pride in the achievement of personal breakthrough. One immediately thinks of the achievements of disabled people long since gone who have left a heritage that we continue to enjoy. One thinks, for example, of the physical disabilities of Milton and Beethoven. They have long since left this world but their

597
literary and musical achievements will never be taken away from us. One thinks, too, of people with mental disability—for example, the poet John Clare, who lived near Peterborough. His life was a great struggle but he left behind great poetry. One thinks of the great painter Vincent van Gogh, and the ever-increasing value that is placed on his work.
It is a pity that sometimes the value is recognised only after people have gone. It would be preferable if more rewards could go back into the world of the disabled while they are alive. We treasure the quality of work that is left behind.
I come to those artists whose achievements have struck me during my lifetime. I remember—during what were, to me, the early days of television—watching Susan Hampshire in "The Forsyte Saga". Apparently, the serial was in black and white, although, interestingly, one tends to remember things in colour. Susan Hampshire managed to learn her part although she was suffering from dyslexia and could not read the words. One would never have known that from her performance in that great serial. Richard Rogers, the great architect who is contributing so much to our environment also suffers from dyslexia.
One must salute those people whose abilities are far greater than mine—and probably greater than those of any hon. Members. One thinks of Professor Stephen Hawking, who wrote "A Brief History of Time". Brief it may be, but understandable by the likes of me it is not. Professor Hawking's intellect has risen above the severe disability from which he suffers. One thinks of Kenneth Robinson, of the National Curriculum Council, now professor of arts education at Warwick and of Patrick Nuttgens, director of Leeds polytechnic. One remembers Elizabeth Quinn's great performance in "Children of a Lesser God". All of them have reached the heights in their chosen profession and are showing us what can be achieved.
Often, people come back after a sudden disabling accident or illness, perhaps the most frequent of which is the stroke. Robert Bolt and Patricia Neal have come back into the theatre; they are writing and acting while coping with the after-effects of a stroke. Th violinist Itzhak Perlman comes up to the concert platform on crutches but gives an extraordinary performance, to the great pleasure of all those who hear him.
We must salute the famous because they give great inspiration to all disabled people but perhaps those who are not yet famous are equally important. One thinks of the gentleman by the name of Alan Edwards who was in the bottom stream of a low-achieving school in Durham and had been virtually written off by everyone in the education service in that area until someone taught him music. He was found to have an extraordinary musical ability. That young man could not think of a career in industry because he could not have read the safety signs. Now, he has found his future in music and plays in the Covent Garden orchestra. Even more incredible is the case of the deaf dancer who trained at the Rambert school and who now dances with the Portuguese national ballet. When I asked how on earth someone who is completely deaf can cope with ballet I was told that one can feel the rythym though one's feet and so be capable of contributing
598
to that art form. To those who do not stop and think, that is unbelievable. When one stops to think and to ask, one is astounded and one admires.
I listened to the nominations for the Today programme's "Best of British Youth" awards. One of those nominated is a young girl called Kelly who suffers from cerebral palsy and has campaigned to help others as a way of overcoming her disability. She campaigned, for example, to ensure that the local nature trials had wide enough paths to accommodate wheelchairs and that tapping stones were provided so that the blind could also benefit from that great local resource. Often, such achievements go unsung, but thanks to the BBC, Kelly's achievement is now known.
When I think of the disabled I think above all of Diane Wellsbury. She has benefited from the work of the SHARE Community in my constituency. Having benefited from it, she set out to support it. She decided to carry out a sponsored wheelchair push. A wheelchair push is not someone else pushing the wheelchair; the person in the chair pushes it with their hands. I was present to see her carry out that push. I was almost moved to tears by the sight of that frail young body and her look of determination as the sweat poured from her little forehead as she pushed her wheelchair. She explained why she was doing the sponsored push in a letter in which she said:
"Please spare a moment of your time to read my letter. I am 23 years old and have always been confined to a whelchair with severe disabilities for which I have to date needed 26 life saving operations. I am a trainee at SHARE Community which helps mentally and physically disabled people. For the first time in my life I now have the opportunity to help other disabled people. I am attempting a sponsored wheelchair push. Please help me."
That girl sums up all that is best in disabled people. She does not know what the future holds, how many years lie ahead or how many more operations she may need. However, she is thinking about how to help others and not about herself. If I dedicate this debate to anyone, I dedicate it to Diane Wellsbury, to the people who look after her and to the many people like her.
Of course, there are many occasions when disabled people are not so fortunate or so able to cope. Although I was right to begin by referring to the joy, laughter, determination and courage, there is also a blacker side to disability. We hear and see the pain, depression, despair and rage that disabled people can express. Very often that is not rage at others, but rage at the disabled person himself for not being able to cope. In some cases they rage at themselves because they try and try, but do not manage to succeed. However, sometimes they rage at Governments, local government or at society which does not seem to understand or to care.
Helping other people to understand is perhaps a central theme of my debate. If we show that we understand sensitively, at least some of that pain, depression, despair and rage can be dissipated. I understand why some disabled people demonstrated about the Telethon. The Telethon was a great effort to get wide public sympathy and financial help for the disabled and organisations that help them, but I understand that some disabled people feel that it was patronising and that they believe they have a right to be treated as a full part of society and not as peep shows or as people who should be patted on the head and then forgotten about.
There is a danger that we will have two nations—the disabled and the less disabled which includes the rest of us.

599
There is a danger that we will have "us" and "them". Although I suspect that most of us would feel that the Telethon demonstration was perhaps ungracious, because many people were genuinely trying to help, I understand the feeling behind it.
The two nations concept is wrong. The road is seamless and there is a gradual progression. There is no clear cross over to disability. If we understand how close ability is to disability, we can perhaps begin to understand the needs. We must understand that disabled people are very close to those of us who may not consider ourselves to be disabled.
Many disabilities are gradual. For example, the loss of sight can be a gradual process as the world darkens. Similarly the loss of hearing, as I have seen in my family, can be a gradual process which can frustrate someone who has always had good hearing and who has perhaps enjoyed the theatre or music. That person is frustrated as he finds steadily that he cannot hear so well.
Mental facilities can also gradually disappear. We do not appreciate many of those cross overs until we suddently realise that a tic could lead to a mental or physical disability. Perhaps a way of behaving or a routine could lead to mental illness. I recall watching a television programme about someone receiving treatment at the Springfield hospital in my borough. The woman concerned had a passion for washing her hands and everything else. It had become more than a fetish or a routine. It had become so all-embracing that it was a form of mental illness. We can all see how our personal routines could easily slip into such a form of illness if we do not keep everything in proportion.
There are also sudden cross overs to disability. Those can arise from accidents. Sadly we hear of road accidents every day, and too often we know the people involved. Such accidents can be permanently debilitating. Strokes can also cause a sudden change of life ending the ability to speak or to move. Stroke patients need to be brought back to full life once more.
Many disabilities are not visible and that is perhaps the most frightening aspect for other people. The invisible illness possibly causes the most fear and prejudice among employers. If someone has a crutch or is in a wheelchair we know their needs. However, if someone has a problem in their mind or body that is not so visible, fear can overcome common sense. In the past such fear has led to people being locked away and forgotten. Once people are locked away in their own corner or institution, society says, "That's that. Let's get on with our lives." Society forgets and if it remembers that memory is tinged with fear.
As a child in Brighton I remember going on the under cliff walk at Ovingdean. To cross the road to the walk I had to go through a tunnel close by that great institution St. Dunstan's. I remember walking through that tunnel on my own. It was dark and the lights were not working and I heard the tap tap of a blind person approaching with his stick. I was terrified. Sadly that kind of terror is capitalised on by many childrens books. They learn attitudes from their parents who may have seen someone put away. Children feel that there is something to be worried about or frightened of. I vividly recall the sound of that tap tap. Of course I know now that my fear made no sense and that that blind person was tapping his way to the fresh open air to gain the same pleasure that I gained from the under cliff walk.
We must acknowledge that fear. If we do not do that, we cannot overcome it. John Wyndham and others have
600
much to answer for building on those fears in the books that we have all enjoyed in our youth. No doubt Hammer horror films are building on such fears now. Science fiction stories about mutants and the horrors about people who are not quite "normal" also try to build on that fear. We must overcome that and encourage writers to take that into account. We must be aware of the fear of the unknown and consider how we would cope. Perhaps that fear is behind it all.
How would I cope if I suddenly discovered that my eyesight had failed? I often muse on that matter. I wonder whether it is worse never to have had sight or to have had it and lose it. Is it better not to know what one has lost or to have at least a memory of what one has lost? At school I played the part of the Duke of Gloucester in "King Lear" who had his eyes gouged out by the Duke of Cornwall—no relation, I hasten to say, to anyone living today. As he was taken towards the cliffs that he thought he would cast himself off, he said,
"I … want no eyes;
I stumbled when I saw."
When one realises that one stumbled, made wrong decisions and took wrong turnings when one had sight, one has a little humility. There is a complex graph of abilities, disabilities, weaknesses and strengths. Often weaknesses and strengths are weaknesses and strengths of character as much as a physical or mental disability.
People with disabilities are like us. I often think of the Shylock quotation.
"If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
The opposite of wrong is right. We can right wrongs by giving rights. The rights that we seek for disabled people are the rights to opportunity, to achieve to the limits of one's potential, and to contribute to society, and the right to support, help and love. Perhaps one cannot demand the right to love—one can only earn that, but one earns it by being understood, so let us have the right to be understood.
Understanding starts young—during or even before school days. If children understand disabled children, they will not undergo a culture shock when, as adults, they encounter people in wheelchairs, with white sticks, hearing problems and so on. I endorse the trend to integrate more disabled children into our education system. We should do so whenever possible. I acknowledge that some disabled children could not cope with mainstream education. Some would find it difficult emotionally or physically to cope, and would need the support of a special needs school and separate education with the support of people with similar disabilities. However, in some cases cost can make that impractical.
Some parents say, "We are worried that our child will be forced into integrated education and will not be able to cope. No one is listening to us." We must listen to every parent and make sure that, when children are encouraged into integrated education, they are ready for it and are able to cope.
Cost is another aspect to be borne in mind. The Oak Lodge school for the deaf in my borough has pupils from a wide area of London. The cost of wiring in that school is phenomenal, but it is of superb quality. It would be difficult to install such high-quality wiring in every school. There is a case for keeping such spectacular schools for the benefit of children with disabilities.

601
The great danger in accepting the right not to be integrated is that some people will say, "That's fine. People do not want to be integrated." There is a great danger that people will take an out of sight, out of mind attitude, with children being institutionalised for the rest of their lives.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that there have been enormous changes in the past 20 years. There has been a profound, if quiet, revolution. In the 1960s, children with severe difficulties were classified as not able to be educated. Children with physical or sensory difficulties were automatically put into special schools—often boarding schools—and taken from their parents and the communities in which they lived. Children with moderate learning difficulties were put into separate schools—possibly a separate unit or class. Children with emotional or behavioural difficulties were excluded from mainstream education. Many of the children who were excluded and put into separate schools had a wide range of abilities and potential which could not be realised in separate schools. They needed rapport with other children and the educational curriculum to be able to do so. In the past 20 years we have established the right of access to education. We must now consider how to implement it.
In my borough of Wandsworth, more than 1,000 statemented children are in mainstream schools. One of the great virtues of putting a child into a mainstream school is that he or she has access to the new national curriculum, which is crucial to the widest range of education. We must be sure that there are the right levels of testing. Testing is a crucial part of our aim to raise education standards. The testing of a child with a disability is not straightforward. We must have a flexible system so that there are no low expectations and no under-achievements. A child should aim at what he or she can achieve, but we must be sensitive to individual needs or difficulties.
The delegation of financial management of schools is a great step forward. Again, we must make sure that such delegation takes disabled children's needs into account. Local education authorities, grant-maintained schools, the Department of Education and Science, school governors, school boards, teachers, heads and so on are required to look after the interests of disabled children. Too often, they say, "No, we cannot cope".
It is good that there is much more parental involvement in education. As parental involvement expands, the parents of disabled children have a greater opportunity to have their say and to make their impact on our education service. Teacher training is beginning to improve, but there is a long way to go. Teachers must understand how to integrate a child with a disability. We do not want teachers and heads saying, "Go down the road."
Many disabled children attend mainstream schools. We cannot yet say that each school is adequately equipped, supported and serviced. I ask my right hon. Friend to pass on the message that, to get integration right, we must provide resources, support and equipment to carry out necessary adaptations.
There is a great shortage of speech therapists. People who have had strokes, for instance, need speech therapy—many people do—yet it is a Cinderella profession.
602
Speech therapy should be given higher priority. Physiotherapy too is often not available in mainstream schools, but it is provided in special schools.
Too many schools do not have wheelchair access for disabled children. In my borough, which has just taken over from the Inner London education authority, there is not a secondary school with wheelchair access. That is the measure of the task ahead of us. There has probably been a greater advance in primary schools. Long-term planning is needed. We need long-term resources—and resources have to be long term in some cases—and we also need resources as soon as possible.
For 12 years, the education authority in Surrey has had a policy of integrating disabled children into mainstream primary and middle-school education although that has not happened at secondary schools in general. However, about eight years ago Surrey education authority tried an experiment at a school called Park Barn, and now about 22 disabled children attend that secondary school. The school buildings had to be adapted. It was a school where that was possible as it had the space, the land and the buildings. The local authority provided the necessary additional resources in capital and revenue.
The school had to provide a new ground-floor resource room, a physiotherapy room, a treatment room, a speech therapy room, two sets of toilets adapted for the use of disabled pupils, two new laboratories on the ground floor, and all the entrances and exits had to have ramps. The internal ramps made access possible to all rooms on the ground floor.
Two teachers experienced in teaching physically disabled pupils and two part-time helpers were appointed. We must not forget that authorities often have to work in tandem on such matters, and the health authority provided six hours of physiotherapy and six hours of speech therapy a week. Once that had been arranged, it was possible to bring in the children. The next stage was to install a lift in the main building, and the school now hopes to install lifts in the separate buildings. The parents, teachers and all the children in that school have worked together to provide a school bus equipped with a tail lift that can be used by children with wheelchairs.
The result is that not only the school, but the school curriculum is acessible to disabled children. It is necessary for the timetabling to be arranged to ensure that the physiotherapy and speech therapy do not interfere with examinations. All that enables disabled children to participate to the full. They participate in all the extra-curricular activities as well as the curriculum. That means field trips, trips abroad, drama and arts festivals and competitions. All the activities that children enjoy become possible. The reverse of the coin is that the clubs and activities, which were technically just for disabled pupils, have become popular with all the pupils. The PHAB club and the lifeskills class soon attracted all the children, irrespective of disability. That integration can and has worked.
I accept that there must be a balance. We should like to have everything tomorrow. We want access to every school eventually, because otherwise our policy of integration of education cannot be meaningful to the parents of the disabled children. However, if we tried to do everything tomorrow, the funds would have to be taken from resources available for other purposes. That is the balance that we must get right.

603
Sometimes access to a school is not just for the pupils—often children have disabled parents who want access to the school so that they can feel a part of that school community. All that should be possible, but it will take time. Perhaps we should press for all new school buildings to provide full access, so that full opportunities become a reality every time.
Children leave school and, it is hoped, go on to higher education. My daughter is a student, and I asked her about the access for disabled students. She said that that was fine and that everything was done to enable the student to study his or her course properly. She said that the only problem was that she did not know how to make contact with the blind students. She did not know when they wanted her to say "Hello" or to bring them into conversation, because there was no eye contact. She had had no experience of working with blind children in her school, so in the student world she did not know how and when to say, "Hi, hello, can I help? Why not come and do this with us?" That is something that society must learn, and if it can learn it early, it will stand us in good stead.
I pay tribute to the recent decision to give additional benefits to disabled students. There is now more assistance for sign language interpreting, note-taking and other areas. We still need to consider the benefits for deaf students because many of them face problems in obtaining holiday jobs. I hope that the Government will consider some additional benefit for them.
Britain has about 6 million people with disabilities, according to all the assessment and surveys. It would be impossible to sum up all the many and different needs in one debate. If I go through a typical day, we might begin to understand some of the problems and how they might be overcome. We get up, wash, dress, make a cup of tea and listen to the radio. Perhaps we trip over, pick ourselves up, get ready, go out, go down the street, get on the bus or the underground train and go to work.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. I hope that my question to him will not pre-empt something that he might be about to mention. Does he agree that many employers are forgoing excellent work by not considering disabled people for employment?
Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I intend to mention employment after I have dealt with the travel-to-work stage. Employers have a large part to play in providing jobs for the disabled. When they have jobs, they cease to be a burden on the community, which then gives them greater self-confidence to play their part in society.
Sometimes, a disabled person needs help to get up in the morning. He may need a dressing changed. Perhaps it is the weekend, when no one comes to give help. In order to wash, he may need taps with longer handles because he might not have sufficient grip to fiddle with the small taps that do not cause us any problem. When dressing, he may find it difficult to cope with zips, shoes and socks. He may want to make a cup of tea, but perhaps the kitchen level is not right for the wheelchair and needs to be adapted. He may want to listen to the radio, but his arthritic fingers may mean that he cannot cope with the knobs on the radio or, perhaps, the control on his hearing aid.
604
If he falls, there may not be bars fitted to prevent him collapsing to the ground or to help him get up again There may not be an alarm system to summon help from a friendly neighbour.
If he goes out, the door must be wide enough for his wheelchair. In the street, he may find that cars are blocking the ramps from the pavement to the road. Or he may try to take a bus, only to find that it is one-man operated and that there is no one to help him board it. The result may be that he has to return home and think again. I refer only to the everyday tasks that we all take for granted but which others cannot perform.
As we develop the Griffiths recommendations, we should bear in mind the need to consider co-operation between district health authorities and social services departments. Very often, social services do not provide weekend services, whereas district nurses will call in to change dressings or to help people get up in the morning. Social workers tend to work only from Mondays to Fridays. If certain functions are transferred to social services departments, they must be provided to the standard currently provided by district health authorities.
Social and health care are indivisible. Whoever takes the lead in community care, everyone should work together to ensure that there are joint ventures for everything, including equipment stores.
When people return to the community from institutions, careful consideration should be given to their housing needs. We must not provide homes in houses or hostels that are so much like institutions that the individual ceases to enjoy the benefit of returning to the community. Equally, such people should not be placed in isolated houses, separated from the care that can be provided. If they are accommodated in clusters of houses, staff can be shared among them.
There has been much publicity lately about the Government's attemps to help people who have to sleep rough. Such efforts tend, rightly, to concentrate on young people who sleep in boxes or doorways, and it is only proper that they should be taken off the streets and given some form of accommodation. However, many who suffer from a mental illness do not congregate, and are not to be found with other groups sleeping in boxes or doorways. They may be found wandering on waste ground, and they, too, must be helped.
When society discharges people from hospital and returns them to society, it should take care to consider the accommodation that is provided. In my part of London, the tower block is the most common form of housing. To put a person suffering from mental illness in a flat in such a block does no one any favours. There is an absence of neighbourly care, so the individual becomes more upset, cannot cope mentally or socially, and starts behaving in a way that antagonises other residents. The mentally ill can find themselves not just discharged from hospital but losing the housing provision made for them, with the consequence that they are left walking the streets. Much more must be done to assist such people.
Social services departments are willing to provide the right kind of washing and bathing facilities in a disabled person's home eventually, but all too often it takes a long time. There is a long wait for assessment, and another long wait before implementation. I hope that pressure can be put on social services departments to speed up that process.

605
The question of clothing for the disabled was dealt with in a recent Adjournment debate, when it was pointed out that often special clothes are needed that cannot be obtained off-the-peg. Special clothing incurs special costs, and therefore requires special financial assistance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has been pressing for all new houses to be constructed in such a way that they can accommodate the disabled, because any of us can find ourselves disabled at any time. If building regulations can be geared up with that requirement in mind, we shall start getting our housing policies right.
A recent report from the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on standards of special seating found that severely disabled people with multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy or similar disabilities are provided with inappropriate wheelchairs and seating by the NHS, causing them pain, deformity and pressure sores. It is believed that the situation can only get worse. A survey of 1,370 residents in the foundation's centres showed that more than one third of them were badly seated or could be seated better. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will study that report to see whether better seating can be provided for those who need it. There is little point in spending money on seating that actually makes the patient's condition worse. Money would be better spent on getting that aspect right.
People with arthritic fingers have problems in operating hearing aids. I have mentioned on more than one occasion the lady whom I found watching television with the sound off. When I asked her why, she explained that she was unable to hear the television even with the sound up because her arthritic fingers made it impossible for her to operate the volume control on her hearing aid.
I asked the hearing aid industry whether something could be provided in such cases and was delighted to learn from one firm that there are ways of solving the problem using either a remote control that eliminates the need for the user to be fumbling at ear level, or a device that incorporates a new concept in volume control, simply using touch. The main problem for someone lacking manual dexterity is adjusting a manual volume control that is difficult to feel. An electronic system enables the user simply to touch the surface of the hearing aid to adjust the volume automatically. That is another improvement which would make a big difference to the lives of our deaf fellow citizens.
Happily, alarm systems are growing in number. They have the support of the police and of many local authorities. A scheme was recently launched in my constituency that provides a panic button alarm system involving neighbours trusted with keys, so that they can enter the home of a person whose alarm has been activated to see what has happened. Such a system can save lives, and it provides enormous reassurance to those living alone, upstairs or downstairs.
I refer again to the problem of cars parked across corners or over pavement ramps. If one is in a wheelchair or is blind, such obstacles can present enormous difficulties, particularly in London. Thoughtless parking should be the subject of a publicity campaign by the Ministry of Transport, urging drivers to park carefully and to think before they park. Parking bays for the disabled
606
are often abused, sometimes by people who have moved into a house where a bay was provided for a previous occupant and think that they can go on using it. That gives the whole system a bad name. I know that parking in London's narrow streets can be a particular problem. One either loses a wing mirror or parks on the pavement and risks causing an obstruction.
Blind people in particular have problems with pavement obstacles apart from badly parked cars, motor bikes or bicycles—though those who ride bicycles on the pavement are as much a menace as those who leave them parked there. Those who ride bicycles at dusk without lights also cause additional hazards to people with vision problems. A lady who is partially sighted wrote to me saying that the obstructions on pavements
"are numerous and varied, seeming to multiply daily. Advertisement boards, twirling vanes, shop furniture and goods, abandoned shopping trolleys … unfenced building sites, unguarded holes, unmarked scaffolding, builders tools, equipment and materials, the list is endless."
The list is endless because people are endlessly thoughtless. I hope that we can persuade them to think first. In addition, stray dogs can be a danger to disabled people. The mess that dogs leave on pavements can be extremely unpleasant.
The orange badge scheme has been abused and has a bad name. The public increasingly resent it because people who have no right to a badge use one. I hope that soon we can introduce regulations to make it a criminal offence to use an orange badge to which one is not entitled.
All forms of transport are important. One-man-operated buses cannot cope with disabled people. Bus routes could be better planned to cater for disabled people. Minibuses can follow routes that other buses cannot. They are being used, and I pay tribute to London Buses for that. Bus design could be improved no end. In particular, the omnibus has a facility to lower the front to the ground to enable a wheelchair to roll on. The omnibus may be the way forward for buses in future.
We have endless battles about rail services. Access to Clapham Junction in my constituency is down or up steps. There are no lifts or other forms of access for disabled people. There is no platform flush to the train for the wheelchairs of those who are carried down. It is high time that British Rail and whoever else is responsible got together to enable our disabled public to travel. Waterloo has many more facilities for the disabled.
Clapham Junction is a great junction for people not just from that part of London, but from all over the south of England to change trains to reach their destination. If only we could get British Rail to put up the money for lifts for the disabled. When it says that it would provide money if somebody else also paid, okay, let us see whether we can persuade the local community to contribute a bit. However, when it says that the local community must contribute most, I am not sure. The junction is a national asset and should be provided nationally. My youngest son has just returned from a school visit to Lille, where there is a new metro system comparable to the Tyne and Wear system. Trains are flush to platforms and wheelchair travel is no problem. That should be our task and target.
The problems of people requiring special needs transport are even greater. Taxi card users hope that some day there may be central funding to assist local funding and that there may be an opportunity to hail a taxi in the

607
street, so that they do not have to endure long waits. Perhaps we could restore the incentive bonus for taxi drivers who pick people up in the street.
I will hear no ill of dial-a-ride. It is a great service. I have a great service in my borough of Wandsworth which is being mucked about by planners who want to force local services into a central or regionalised network. I ask my right hon. Friend to put pressure on London Regional Transport to say that people who use the service should have priority, rather than the wishes, efficiency-based or otherwise, of the transport authorities to have a system which fits neatly into their pattern. Alas, 70 per cent. of my 1,000 members' journeys are local and 30 per cent. are over five miles. LRT has disputed the figure of 30 per cent. and we cannot get the extra bus that other dial-a-ride groups are getting until we fit into the pattern. That is wrong and canot be tolerated.
Benefits are to provide back-up and they show the strength of society's feeling that we should be doing just that. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister can claim a good record on the increase in and extension of benefits since 1979. Nearly twice as many people receive severe disablement allowance, twice as many receive invalidity benefit, three times as many receive attendance allowance and six times as many receive mobility allowance. Expenditure has doubled to £8 billion and may be even more now.
A survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' showed a degree of satisfaction among disabled people, but not when age was taken into consideration. If 6 million people are disabled, 70 per cent. of them are over 60 and 50 per cent. over 70. Some 3.3 million of those over 60 have locomotion problems. We must not assume that because a person reaches a certain age, disability is a normal fact of life. If somebody becomes disabled at 64, he or she qualifies for mobility allowance. At 65 the person does not. Yet all the additional costs can be the same. We need to look at that and to square the discrepancy in the definitions of disability of the World Health Organisation, which was used by the OPCS, with that of the Department of Social Security, which does not refer to the ability to move about. The White Paper made no mention of transport needs and I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to them when he replies.
In January when we had a debate initiated by the Opposition my right hon. Friend said that a review of disability benefits was to take place. I hope that it will. I hope that consideration will be given to the evidence of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that some tests are unnecessarily cruel, such as when people are forced to go through pain to see whether they qualify for mobility or attendance allowance. One should accept the GP's evidence as good enough. Attendance allowance can be confusing. If it is withdrawn, it can lead immediately to the withdrawal of invalid care allowance. That is a double penalty and we need to consider it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can refer to the Simon Crompton, Down's syndrome case about benefits payable to people who live at home. That needs to be looked at sympathetically, and I know that my right hon. Friend will do so.
All those benefits are to help with the extra costs which people with disabilities face. It is partly that they are less likely to earn, partly that they are likely to earn less and partly that they are less likely to earn promotion. One third of disabled people are at work which means that two thirds are not. Those who are, work fewer hours on lower pay
608
rates. If, through benefits, people can work, it means that they can pay tax and cease to need other benefits. In the long run that is helpful to all of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) referred to employers. I hope that we can send a message to them on behalf of the 2.5 million disabled people of working age. They should be patient as it may take some time for someone with disabilities to settle into a job.
A report has been published today on the vexed question of the 3 per cent. target for the employment of people with disabilities. Some 25 per cent. of firms fail to meet that target—sadly that includes many Government Departments, no doubt this place and probably the national health service. I accept that many people with disabilities are not registered, but are working and that, therefore, the 3 per cent. target may not be accurate. Many firms and buildings could not cope with some forms of disability, but many others could. We should consider the system that operates in Germany and in other countries. In Germany, firms that do not meet the employment target are fined the equivalent of that target in salary terms. If they fail to meet the target in the next year the fine is doubled. The money recouped goes into training and the provision of access for disabled people. If we operated such a system I am sure that many firms would say yes to employing people with disabilities. I accept that it is not as straightforward as that, but we should encourage the enforcement as well as the provision of such employment opportunities.
I hope that we can get rid of some of the bogus excuses for non-employment or lack of promotion. The other day I met someone with a visual disability who works on computers in a Government Department—I had better not name it. He cannot get promotion because that would mean working on a different type of computer based on the eighth floor, but he is not allowed to work above the fifth floor as that might be a fire hazard. He cannot get promotion for that reason, which is nonsense. I hope that we can get rid of such problems.
The biggest obstacle to employment is training. People must be trained to take up the vacancies as they occur. The uncertainties affecting training establishments are legion. I have already referred to Diane Wellsbury of SHARE and the problems that it is facing. That organisation has done a great deal for people who have come to the end of the line. It provides them with the opportunity to train, and many people's achievements have been extraordinary. Some have gone to university and many are now working in Government Departments, local government and other firms.
Jasminda is severely disabled with Ehlers Danlos syndrome. She can hardly walk and has little use of her hands. SHARE was able to train her in office skills, and she was approached by the local council who took her on in its housing department. She has now worked there for more than a year and it is the first job that she has had. She is proud of the fact that she now pays income tax—not many of us share that pride. It is a great achievement for someone with her disabilities to pay such tax.
Between 1978 and 1988 SHARE was funded by the Manpower Services Commission. From September 1988 it has been funded by the Training Agency. Thousands of people have benefited from the organisation, but since SHARE joined the employment training scheme it has had to negotiate five contracts with the Training Agency. In

609
theory each contract lasts for 12 months and it is just about to re-contract. All the bureaucracy involved in that hinders the ability of that organisation to provide for people who are desperately in need.
Under the new training schemes the amount of money available has been reduced. The allocation is geared to the number of people looking for training, but among the disabled increased expectation means that many more are coming forward for such training. We should meet that demand. However, the allocations to SHARE were cut by 10 per cent. in March and it is expected that a further cut will be made next year. If there are any further cuts that organisation risks having to close on 31 March 1991. That must not happen. We are dealing with vulnerable people who need opportunities. Training provides such an opportunity and it should be at the forefront of what we offer to people with disabilities.
The arts can provide a precious opportunity—the ability to find oneself. People gain self-confidence and self-respect when they discover that, whatever they cannot do, they can do something artistic. The contribution made to the arts by many people with disabilities is staggering. We are aware of organisations such as the Graeae, the London Disability Arts Forum and its Movin' On festival. Those organisations and events enable people to discover themselves and more support for them would be welcomed.
I am a great believer in participation as the first objective of arts policy. However, we must also enable people to enjoy the arts and it is important to support programmes such as Adapt, which is designed to adapt buildings to enable people with wheelchairs to get in and ensures the provision of hearing loops for those with hearing difficulties.
It is also important to consider how the arts present the disabled to see that a more positive image is shown on soaps such as "Coronation Street", or whatever my right hon. Friend the Minister watches every night. The soaps are extremely popular and it is important that the public should see a more positive image of disabled people.
It is time that the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 were enacted. In the National Health Service and Community Care Bill a complaints procedure has been put in place and surely it makes sense for disabled people to have the right to be represented. The missing sections 1 and 2 of the 1986 Act would fulfil that obligation. Section 3 relates to consultation about the needs of the disabled and written statements about them. Section 7 relates to people discharged from institutions with mental disorders. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend may not be able to say, "Eureka, we can do that today", but I hope that those sections will be implemented soon.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also refer the legal difficulties encountered by some local authorities in making payments directly to disabled people. Some authorities pay money directly to people to enable them to buy their own care and personal assistance. That gives those people more choice and we should support that. Other local authorities say that such payments are illegal. We must sort that out so that there is genuine consumer choice across the country.
610
Carers work alongside our disabled fellow citizens. It is estimated that there are 6 million carers for our 6 million disabled. That figure covers those who are aged 16 and over and represents 3.5 million women and 2.5 million men. A quarter of them spend more than 20 hours per week providing care. For the carers caring in their own home, the figure of 25 per cent. for those who spend more than 20 hours a week caring and providing a service goes up to 63 per cent.; 45 per cent. spend 50 hours a week or more doing so and 54 per cent. give up work to care. Therefore, because of the lack of support that they have so often had in the past, it is not surprising that one in 20 carers admit to some form of violence towards their dependant. That shows the pressure and tension that can build up.
I shall quote from a published letter from "Jessie"—I do not think that is her real name—whose husband, Tom, is an Alzheimer's patient. She wrote:
"I didn't know anything about Alzheimer's disease then but I made it my business to find out all I could—and I didn't like what I heard. By trial and error I have learnt to cope although it is a very hard and uphill road … From a placid, even-tempered, quitely-spoken man, Tom has changed into a different person … looking after the needs of someone with AD is like having a child in the house. They follow you around; if you nip to the bathroom or bedroom, anywhere where they can't see you, they are calling for you … The hardest time for me was when he forgot who I was—where did I fit into his life? The same questions over and over again. When he gets so very confused, I sit with him and I take him back down his memory to his childhood and his years in the army.
"I have become very good at hiding my feelings, but no one knows of the tears shed in the silence of the night—the heartbreak of the way our lives have changed."
Being who she is, Jessie went on to say:
"when the morning dawns, I lie and count my blessings and there are so many of them."
There are blessings in caring, but carers have needs. Those wonderful people are, according to the Select Committee on Social Services, saving us £24 billion a year. I do not know whether that figure is acknowledged, but it must be somewhere near the truth. We must do more to help carers through carer's premiums and invalidity care alllowance. Above all, we must provide them with a respite, let them get away occasionally, catch their breath and get their second wind so that they can go back to help. In helping, they are helping us all.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put into inadequate words some of my feelings about disabled people. Getting to know disabled people and their organisations has given me a great deal. It has certainly added an extra dimension to my life. They are people with so much to offer us, each other and the world. Their achievements stir our emotions. I hope that in this debate we shall also feel that they appeal to our heads as well as our hearts. It makes economic and social sense to ensure that their disability is not a bar to full participating citizenship. Our task is to enable them to continue to bridge the gap between what they could achieve if they did not have their particular disability and what they constantly astound us by achieving despite it.
I shall end by returning to the beginning of my speech and looking at the little brochure sent to me about a disabled child going to school, using an electronic wheelchair and all that happens to her at school. It describes all the help, support and participation, and the true friendships of the child with other children right the way through the school. At the end it states:

611
"This school does not yet exist, and nor does the story teller exist as a single person. But everything in it has already happened in a school somewhere, and all the thoughts and feelings have already happened to somebody … True integration means … acceptance of equality of all people, regardless of ability or needs."
The booklet is entitled "nothing special". When it is nothing special to be disabled because society accepts that one is a full member of the community, when we give support in such a way that ambitions can be met and striven for, then disabled people will have the opportunty that my motion seeks to promote.
10.55 am
Mr. Alfred Morris: This is a highly unusual debate. In fact, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has achieved an important first, as I cannot remember when there was last a general debate on the problems and needs of people with disabilities that was not held on an Opposition Supply day since the present Government came to power. So I congratulate him on using his good fortune in winning time for a debate, on his choice of subject and on the range and quality of the, at times, moving speech with which he opened the debate. We readily accept, of course, much of his motion.
The House is often at its best in debates on disability, not least because of the success of the all-party disablement group in keeping right hon. and hon. Members so well informed about the concerns of disabled people and their organisations. Like the hon. Member for Battersea I am, therefore, extremely sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who chairs the all-party group, cannot be with us today. He is honouring commitments made before this debate was announced and his voice will be sadly missed, as will that of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), the group's very hard-working secretary.
The Minister, like his immediate predecessors with responsibility for disabled people, often tells them from the Front Bench how extremely well they have fared under this Government. However, that is certainly not how they and their organisations view the Government's record. They say that almost all the extra spending about which Ministers speak is due not to any improvements in benefits, but to the increased number of disabled people now claiming attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and other benefits that were introduced before this Government came to power. In fact, the vast majority of disabled people have fared much worse than most other people in terms of their living standards. Their organisations compare the Government's claims about their performance with their consistent refusal to find time for it to be debated in the House.
The dispute about the Government's record is very much one between Ministers and disabled people. They and their organisations strongly refute the Government's claims. They say not only that disabled people have fared worse than other people, but that in a huge number of cases they are poorer in real terms than they were 11 years ago, due to the social security changes of April 1989.
There is not enough time today, or in any single parliamentary debate, for us to review all the restrictions on opportunity for disabled people; but there is one that I must briefly raise at the outset. Barnardos recently arranged a "Parents' Forum" in a Committee Room of the House. Those of us who went were told by the parents of severely disabled young people that their sons and
612
daughters can lose their severe disablement allowance if they enter youth training and then fail to find work. I am sure that they left all who heard them with the feeling that to withdraw severe disablement allowance from young people who try so bravely to triumph over severe handicap is a form of refined cruelty that Ministers must urgently stop.
The savings made by the Government from withdrawing SDA in those cases are very small compared with the £1.9 billion given in a single Budget to the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers. The present rule is a tax on hope—that of young people who passionately want to exchange the dependence of social security benefits for the independence of gainful employment. All that severely disabled youngsters who receive training—even those who succeed as trainees—can possibly have today is hope.
Unemployment among disabled job-seekers is more than twice as high as among able-bodied people. Only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age work, compared with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse; 33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. The earnings of disabled people who find work are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees, and the same is true of parents of disabled children. Moreover, the Government's record in terms of jobs offered to disabled people is among the worst of all employers. So the Government's review of employment services for disabled people is of considerable parliamentary importance.
Yet I understand that, at the very moment when this debate began, a press conference was timed to take place for the release outside this House of the outcome of the review. While the Minister for Disabled People may allude here later to a document that has already been given to the press, I must strongly complain to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about what will be widely seen as contemptuous treatment of this House. A planted parliamentary question for written answer is no substitute for full parliamentary scrutiny. This has already been described to me by people in the media as a shabby manoeuvre to avoid parliamentary questioning. The House deserved a statement yesterday in the normal way, with opportunities to question the Minister about the outcome of the review. As my speech proceeds, I shall return in detail to employment problems.
Meanwhile, I wish to emphasise that all Government policy in relation to people with disabilities, especially young people, should be directed to a single end: to enable them to participate in society on an equal basis with their fellow citizens. That requires the closest possible co-ordination between all Government Departments, but particularly between the Departments of Health, Employment, Education and Science and Social Security. Too often over the past 11 years we have witnessed a total failure to co-ordinate in Whitehall, with Departments thwarting each other's efforts. I offer one example. For severely disabled young people one of the keys to greater independence is to secure personal assistance which is under their control and which will help them do what they want to do when they want to do it. After much campaigning by Members of Parliament and others, not least the all-party disablement group, the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced a new package for disabled students, including a grant of up to £4,000 a year for non-medical support staff—Hansard, 19 March, c.

613
417. But what will happen when they leave college to seek employment and when their need of personal assistance will be just as pressing?
Ministers continue to sloganise about independent living, but continue to miss opportunities to put good intentions into practice. In another place last Monday, the Government succeeded in defeating by five votes the addition of a new clause to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which would explicitly have given local authorities the power to make grants to people with disabilities to purchase their own care or personal assistance services.
Ministers have seldom been made to look so inconsistent and crass. They commend schemes that exist, but say that they are advised that these schemes are technically unlawful so they cannot openly obtain information about them, let alone encourage others. Local authorities support voluntary organisations of and for people with disabilities in arguing that this is a power that they should have; but Ministers have the cheek to claim that locally elected people would act unwisely and that the administration of public funds would be at risk. As one of the least welcome parts of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is the Government's insistence that public money should be thrown at the private sector, it is extraordinary that the Government will not allow modest sums to go to people with severe disabilities who want only to win more control of their own lives. Paradoxically, the independent living fund already acts in this way without ministerial misgivings. If new awards from the ILF are abolished from next April, as is now feared, and if local authorities are not empowered to make direct grants to people with disabilities, all the Government's fine words about supporting the independence of disabled people will be shown to be so much hot air.
The Government have already resisted attempts to give disabled people the same legal rights to an assessment for respite care as they have to services under section 2 of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. A notable recent report by Crossroads—entitled "Caring for Carers"—shows that caring is a full-time job, with only 17 per cent. of carers having some form of employment. The survey also shows that 10 per cent. of carers have no free time at all and 52 per cent. have only between one and five hours each week. Four out of 10 carers said that they were often at breaking point and I am glad the hon. Member for Battersea spoke so movingly in support of that finding.
Crossroads has clearly shown that one of the key demands of carers is for more respite care, especially in the home. To this effect, Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group, a widely respected figure in this House, has pointed out:
"Where it exists, respite care almost invariably involves moving the disabled person out of his or her home, leaving the regular helper temporarily free of any responsibility for the disabled person. Indeed, the White Paper defines respite care in these terms."
In the recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 83 per cent. of adults in the two most severe categories of disablement had not received any respite care in the previous year. The percentages of people receiving such help in the home as night sitting were negligible.
614
Section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 for the first time gave carers a statutory right to have the local authority consider their ability to provide care. Yet a recent report from the social services inspectorate shows that, two years after the implementation of that section, only one-fifth of councils had a written policy.
The full impact of section 8 will not be apparent until Ministers stop dragging their feet and implement section 3, not least the vital subsections on disabled people, or their carers, who need communication assistance. Is it not utterly disgraceful that this and other crucial sections of the 1986 Act, which was so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—with support from both sides of the House—still await implementation four years after they became law? May we now have a clear and definitive statement about the Government's intentions? It was good to hear the endorsement of the hon. Member for Battersea of the now general view that the Government must act now and very urgently.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that when my predecessor supported what I tend to call the Clarke Act, it was made clear that it would be implemented as and when resources became available. We have now implemented all the important parts of the Act except for sections 1, 2 and 3, and, as I told the House on an earlier occasion during oral questions, we are now consulting local authorities about the implementation of those sections. Local authorities have a crucial role in their implementation and it is important that we have their views and reactions. We have now initiated consultations with them with a view to implementation in due course.
Mr. Morris: I well recall the statements in the House by the Minister's predecessor. None of us, on either side of the House, thought that there would be a delay of four years in implementing crucial provisions of the Act. To govern is to choose; many people will say, not least in the voluntary sector, that there clearly have been resources since 1986 for full implementation of all the purposes of the Act. I do of course, appreciate the importance of the role of local authorities. They need to be consulted regularly and in detail. However, local authorities are themselves complaining strongly about the delay in implementing a statute that is so important for disabled people.
A recent report in The Times said that the Secretary of State for Health is preparing the ground for delay in implementing the community care parts of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Given the unpardonable rejection by the Government of ring-fencing and the vastly increased burdens that the poll tax has imposed on local authorities, I fully endorse the fears of Crossroads, of which I have the honour to be patron, that without significant resources carers will see no service improvement under the new system. Crossroads argues:
"Hard-pressed councils have to prioritise need in the face of scarce resources and it is quite understandable that people who are now looked after by a carer will be of lower priority than those living on their own."
Another key component of independent living is social security for which the Minister has direct responsibility. As he knows, his policy statement "The Way Ahead" has been

615
greeted with dismay by almost all the voluntary organisations of and for people with disabilities. Peter Large has described it as a cul-de-sac and says that ministerial talk of a more coherent system of benefits is "a sign of delirium."
The Government's proposals for the new so-called disability allowance will help only those with mobility or care needs. The Government claim that this reflects the findings of OPCS, but the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—in its response to "The Way Ahead" told the Minister:
"The OPCS report downgraded many conditions which proved to cause significant extra expenses. Although only 18 per cent. of adults reported extra expenditure on food (OPCS 2 Table 4.7) this was, at £6.20 per week, by far the single most expensive item; and expenditure was almost identical in all severity categories (OPCS 2 Table 4.9). Equally the small number of children with digestive disorders cost their parents four times as much as others".
RADAR went on to criticise the Government's total failure to replace the extra help with special diets that was available before April 1987 for people with AIDS. The Royal Association said that restricting help to those with less than six months to live—by the extension of attendance allowance to the terminally ill—is insulting to those whose lives can be prolonged by sufficient help at an earlier stage of their illness. This example of digestive disorders and diets is used by RADAR to illustrate flaws in the OPCS's methodology which have led the Government to ignore the needs of a significant number of people with disabilities.
Is there nothing that the Minister can do to help people who are so demonstrably in the direst need? I ask him urgently to review the scandalous plight of people with AIDS to whom RADAR drew his attention and also to give today the Government's response to the social security commissioners' decision, reported this week, on the important case, to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred, of Simon Crompton, who has Down's syndrome and lives with his retired parents in Tameside in Greater Manchester. It is estimated that the decision in that case could benefit 30,000 other disabled people. What action are the Government taking to identify them, and do they accept the social security commissioners' decision?
Mr. Crompton had been refused severe disability premium, worth £28.20 a week, which is available under the income support system. The Department of Social Security says that the premium is designed for people who live on their own, although the regulations allow for it to be paid in cases where a claimant "jointly occupies" a property with other adults. The case turned on whether this wording implied a stake in ownership or tenancy of a property, as the DSS maintained, or merely a sharing of a property, as Mr. Crompton successfully claimed. He stands to receive almost £2,000 in benefit arrears.
Will the Minister concede that it would be shameful for his Department now to seek to deny benefit to severely disabled people on the grounds that they are living in the same house as elderly parents? Will he now admit that the Government's policy is a complete shambles with wholly inadequate provision in income support, the independent living fund in suspended animation, social services departments unable to give grants to people such as Simon Crompton, poll tax demands that disabled people cannot afford to pay, and "The Way Ahead" offering nothing to the most severely disabled members of our society who wish to live independent lives?
616
I should now like to turn to three aspects of the employment services for disabled people. First, there is a widely supported demand, not least from the organisations that speak for disabled people, for stricter enforcement of the quota scheme. As less than a quarter of firms satisfy their 3 per cent. quota obligations, and as the employment service has stated that work with disabled people is of low priority, will the Department now enforce the quota system? What will be done about people with disabilities which severely affect their employment prospects and who now languish in job shops with scant, if any, prospect of ever finding a job?
Secondly, will the Government expand the sponsored placement scheme to provide more integrated work opportunities at all levels for disabled people? Voluntary organisations were dismayed by the reply on 12 March to the chairman and secretary of the all-party disablement group, which baldly stated that no new SPS places would be available during 1990–91. That reply is at column 136.
Will the Minister also respond to the criticisms in the excellent recent report by Mainstream that the subsidy is too low and that SPS employees are disadvantaged by being ineligible for the same benefits and terms of employment as others with whom they work because they are not employed directly by the host firm?
Thirdly, will the Government now belatedly emulate the United States Congress, which has passed the Americans with Disabilities Act? That Act extends to the private sector in the United States the anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act 1973, which have proved so effective in combating discrimination in the public sector and among firms receiving federal funds. Since anti-discrimination legislation has been on the statute book in the United States for 17 years and is now being extended, how can Ministers here possibly claim that it would be ineffective?
We could have led the world in outlawing discrimination, as we did in 1970 when we legislated on access to buildings, if the Government had acted on the report in 1982 of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, which I appointed as the then Minister in 1979, or had not shamelessly blocked successive private Members' Bills aimed at giving the report legislative effect.
I shall give one example from Manchester of the vital importance of legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. A deaf young woman employed by the Greater Manchester Coalition for Disabled People is unable to enjoy the same employment rights as others because the Department of Employment will provide communicators only for deaf trainees and not for employees. Kevin Hyett, the chairman of the GMCDP, has said:
"The Government provide blind people with readers and disabled people generally with a wide range of high-tech equipment, so you have to say that this is blatant discrimination."
The Government often single out deaf people for special hardship. As in that case, their needs are ignored by the social security system and often their severe disability makes it practically impossible for them to obtain even their basic entitlement. Happily, in another place, an amendment to the Social Security Bill has been passed to allow deaf students to retain entitlement to social security benefits. I trust that the Minister will announce today that

617
the Government have no intention of seeking to overturn that amendment when the Bill returns to this House. I urge him unequivocally to do so when he speaks in this debate.
I hope also that the Minister will explain what actions he will take to end the chaos which is threatening employment training schemes run by voluntary organisations. Only this week, I heard that the "Black Country Talking Magazine for the Blind", which is manned by ET workers, has to close because of lack of funds. The Spastics Society, which provided 429 training places, decided on 30 April to withdraw from the ET scheme when the Government altered the terms of the contract. If the society had not withdrawn, it would have faced a deficit of over £200,000 in the coming year. What possible justification is there for that huge tax on voluntary effort?
This morning, the Spastics Society released a valuable report which reflects deep concern about the Government's employment policies. The report says that discrimination against disabled job applicants has not diminished in the past four years. As the Minister knows, the Spastics Society is in the forefront of organisations now demanding anti-discrimination legislation, to which Labour Members are fully committed.
The motion moved by the hon. Member for Battersea pays equal tribute to Government and voluntary organisations. I hope he is now persuaded that he should have been more selective in his praise.
There are very few voluntary organisations of or for people with disabilities which do not have a long catalogue of examples of how the Government continue to cut the ground from under their feet and, while leaving no platitude unspoken, enact policies which reduce the equality and independence of people with disabilities. Yet the House must recognise that independence is the biggest prize of all for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. It has become the common objective of this House as a whole.
11.22 am
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his success in the ballot and his choice of subject. I came third in the ballot, but I do not resent that fact because of the subject that he chose and because he treated it with such sensitivity and understanding.
I appreciate the experience and commitment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), but I do not intend to follow him down the path of the financial and economic resources that should be available to disabled people. I shall look at the wider issues set out in the motion.
When talking about the disabled, we are in danger of confusing several issues. we are inclined to group many diverse talents and limitations. To name the broad categories, there are physical disabilities, mental disabilities and psychological difficulties, from which many people suffer. To consider those people as a cohesive group would be to misunderstand their problems and not recognise their contributions.
We come up against disability either personally or by recognising it in others. I discovered this early in life when I studied law at university. My tutor had been blind from birth, but he went on to hold one of the foremost chairs in jurisprudence. There is no doubt that I learnt much from
618
him about understanding the law and I could in no way emulate the way he understood attempts to contribute in seminars and tutorials. One of the tasks I was first invited to perform—rather than being a chore, turned out to be a happy duty—was to read the law reports and other documents. One simply had to gabble away, but the way in which he anticipated the result before the end of the argument was amazing. Although he suffered one disability, he did not see it as such. A compensating achievement more than ruled out any disability he might have felt.
The motion has given us an opportunity to look at this matter in the broad sense. By considering the challenge that disability brings to those who suffer from it and to those of us who have no obvious psychological, physical or intellectual disability, we have an opportunity to think about where we can bring pressure to bear, place emphasis and give support.
The key concept in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was "access". It is clear that those with disabilities in any of the three broad categories that I have suggested suffer because of access difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke of the problems of wheelchair access to schools in inner-city areas. We recognise the problems of people who wish to go to the theatre or wish to sit in the House or the other place. We should ensure that there is easy access in newly designed buildings and that, as far as possible, existing premises are adapted so that embarrassment is not caused and obstacles do not exist.
Physical access may be connected with the intellectual or educational access to which my hon. Friend referred. If children cannot get into a school because they are wheelchair-bound, the opportunities that they might enjoy and might properly claim are obstructed. Those two aspects deny people access to opportunities in the wider community. As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, access to independence must be the key for any person who suffers from a disability, allowing that person to fulfil himself and achieve his potential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has opened up a debate that challenges the attitude of the public and our attitude as individuals. It has presented us with the challenge not to look at disability as an obstruction or inhibiting factor, but to consider the opportunities for fulfilment of those who perhaps have limitations in one sense but have great potential in another. I have visited the Cheshire home and Athan house. When one is in the presence of members of the Southwark branch of Mencap or one sees the wheelchair race in the London marathon, one's attitude to the problems of incapacity and disability is changed.
The problems of a person with a physical disability sometimes come rather closer to home. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea described the day of a physically disabled person. A year or so ago, while I was gardening, I pricked my hand on a rose and had to have my hand in a sling for a week. I suddenly had a greater understanding of what incapacity and disability meant. I could not tie a tie or a shoelace, I had difficulty doing up buttons and I could not drive a car. I was suddenly made aware of what disability means even in its most trivial form. That gave me even greater admiration for the courage, grit and determination of the disabled who succeed in achieving,

619
whereas those of us who are reasonably able most of the time and suddenly come up against disability find life difficult.
Disability is a matter of attitude as well as of resources. Resources must be available and properly deployed. However, the attitude of those of us who take an interest in these matters must inform and reflect itself on the rest of the community. Those who, in one sense or another, are regarded as disabled have an important role to play in decision-making. Our debate today offers the opportunity to open up the subject for a wider discussion and for wider understanding. I welcome the choice of topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea.

Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Act 1990

2. Greenwich Hospital Act 1990

3. Pakistan Act 1990

4. Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act 1990

5. Food Safety Act 1990

6. Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Act 1990

7. Computer Misuse Act 1990

8. National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990

9. Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1990

10. South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1990

Disabled People
Question again proposed.
11.31 am
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I wish to concentrate on a specific aspect of disability. I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who addressed a wide and important range of problems facing disabled people. I shall not deal with those points or with the matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as they have been dealt with adequately already. If the views of the hon. Member for Battersea were shared and acted on by the Government, there would be little, if any, need for today's debate.
As the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) said, we are all aware that many hon. Members have attempted, through private Members' Bills, to bring these matters to the attention of the Government, but most attempts have failed. Hon. Members have attempted to introduce legislation covering the range of matters raised today but in almost every case the Government have turned their face against the Bill. They have resisted the opportunity presented to them to make progress.
I was fortunate enough to be drawn in the ballot and I attempted to introduce a simple private Member's Bill, the Local Government (Access to Information) (Disabled Persons) Bill. All the points raised this morning are vital. A problem which affects many disabled people is their lack of access not only to buildings, but to information. My simple, one-clause Bill sought to bring to the Government's notice the fact that disabled people were disadvantaged by not having access to information. There are many examples of that problem. We are all aware of the tremendous impact of information technology. Information is power, and information means that one has the knowledge to deal with matters affecting one's life and the lives of others. In many ways, disabled people are deprived of information which could bring a solution to their problems or relieve the problems in their day-to-day lives.
It is only since the creation of the national health service that disability and disabled people have been brought out of the shadows of the pre-war and early post-war period, when in almost all instances the problems of the disabled were ignored by Governments and by society in general. The national health service did a great deal to make us aware that disabled people were people like ourselves who suffered from a disability which often prevented them from leading what would be considered a normal life. Progress has been made in many directions, thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and of many other hon. Members who have constantly attempted to draw the Government's attention to the various problems faced by disabled people.
I want the Government to act on the single issue raised in my Bill and I appeal to the Minister to take its provisions on board. That would not be a costly exercise. My Bill sought to make local authorities and other agencies responsible for ensuring that disabled people, such as blind people, who have great difficulty in obtaining information about themselves, about the world in which they live, about their local authority and about the agencies, have access to information. Little or no provision

621
is made by local authorities to make such information available to blind people or to deaf people who suffer particularly as a consequence of a lack of information.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that his private Member's Bill was widely welcomed by disabled people and their organisations? It is still not too late for the Bill to be enacted. I hope that the Minister will respond as helpfully as he can to my hon. Friend's important plea.
Mr. Loyden: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's useful intervention. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will relent and move away from the attitude adopted by his predecessor. I hope that he will at least consider the Bill, which will not cause financial problems for the Government but will make local authorities and agencies responsible for reporting annually. The Bill is not intended merely to leave the matter as a piece of legislation, but to bring the issue alive. Every year, reports would be produced to show whether local authorities and other agencies were implementing the provisions on access to information for the blind, for the deaf and for other disabled people. That information is vital.
We must remember that disabled people pay their rates and taxes just like everyone else. As ratepayers, we have access to local authority information on a whole range of issues that affect our lives. We can obtain that information reasonably easily by going to the local authority and obtaining a leaflet or some advice. Disabled people cannot make those simple approaches. We must take into account the need for local authorities and other agencies to find ways of providing information to blind and deaf people in particular.
That task would not present local authorities with problems. Information technology provides the means to let deaf people know what is going on when they visit their local council chamber. How many councils provide sign language at their meetings to enable deaf people to understand and appreciate what is happening? The answer is very few. How many blind people are given the opportunity to know what is happening in their council and its committees, which take decisions that affect their daily lives? The answer, again, is that very few, if any, are trying to provide disabled people with access to information that is vital to them.
I came to understand the enormity of the problem when I first introduced my private Member's Bill. I received a video letter from a constituent in his early 20s. I had to find a means of translating that letter, which was in sign language, and I used the resources of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which provided me with the translation that I sought. That young man went to the trouble to point out that that was his only means of communication and it made an impact on me. He pointed out that often when he could not hear what was happening on television he asked his parents, who were sometimes annoyed or could not understand him. That may appear, on the face of it, to be a minor problem but it means a great deal to that young guy.
Attempts are being made to provide sign language on television to help deaf people. Now that our proceedings are televised, sign language should be provided, because people regard this place as an important feature of life in this country. It is essential that they should have access to
622
what happens here and in the other place. Sign language should be used so that deaf people can join all those who gain their information from the television.
I was greatly encouraged by the fact that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and my young constituent went to the trouble to do what they did. I sent a video sign language reply to his message which was a simple one. He asked, "Have you forgotten our problems of communication and information? Are you aware of them?" I knew then that the video letter was the only means of communication that that young man had. We should consider that most seriously because he is one of many thousands of people who are affected.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Battersea and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. I appeal to him, even at this late stage, to reconsider my simple, one-clause Bill, which would bring a great deal of comfort and pleasure—and, information being what it is, a great deal of value—to those who, by reason of their disability, are cut off from vital sources of information.
11.44 am
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and on his excellent choice of topic. I am delighted to be able to be here today, and I am only sorry that the Liberal Democrats have not seen fit to attend this important debate. They go on at length about how much they care for the disabled, but not one of them was here at the start of the debate and, to the best of my knowledge, there is not one here now. I suppose that they may all be sitting there en masse but if they are, they are invisible as usual.
It is a sad fact that many people today pay no heed to the problems of the disabled unless they themselves are disabled or have relatives or friends who are. Those facts bring home to ordinary people the great needs of the disabled. I have a relative who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Another relative, who died recently, suffered a major stroke and lived for 10 years after it which I gather is quite unusual. He was a man of very strong constitution. He found that he could just about cope with his disability although, unfortunately, he had lost the ability to read and write. He managed by using talking books, watching the television and conversing with others. But he found particularly difficult a little operation of which most people would think nothing: he could not cut his toe nails. That caused him more anxiety and difficulty than almost anything. Often, people find that they are able to deal with most things and they find it difficult to ask for help with an everyday operation such as that.
Also on a personal note, my father suffered from Alzheimer's disease for several years. It is a truly horrific and terrible disease. My mother did sterling work looking after him and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. Bennett, the local doctor, and to Rose Fortune, the district nurse in the area of Inverness-shire where my parents lived. They were both marvellous in looking after my father. Personal contact with disability brings home to one how important the subject is and one perhaps gets some idea of the problems that the disabled face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had done his research well and covered most of the subjects that I wish

623
to mention. I congratulate him on that. He has done extraordinarily well. In my brief intervention in his speech, I said that many prospective employers are not prepared even to consider someone if he has a disability of some sort. I do not know why they should do that, but they are doing themselves out of people whose brain power may be much better than theirs. I plead with employers to widen their scope when they want to fill job vacancies. They should consider the claims of disabled people because they can do those jobs very well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to the difficulties of getting to work. He also referred to the achievements of many notable disabled people. I can think of many examples of disabled people who have achieved a great deal. For example, Nelson won the battle of Trafalgar with only one arm and only one eye. That was a great achievement. The French may not have thought so at the time and they probably do not think so now. Sir Douglas Bader was legless when he flew Spitfires in the battle of Britain. Professor Stephen Hawking has already been referred to. I briefly dipped into his book "A Brief History of Time" and quickly out of it again. That book requires the summer recess to do it justice.
Some great composers also suffered disabilities and in that regard I think of Delius. I am not necessarily convinced that he was a great composer, but some people think so. Nevertheless, he found ways of overcoming his illness and he wrote music. Beethoven was so deaf that when he attended the first performance of his ninth symphony he was completely unable to hear it. He did not know when it finished and his friends had to turn him round so that he could see the cheering and applauding crowd.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned Itzhak Perlman. I remember attending a concert at the Royal Festival hall some years ago at which Mr. Perlman performed Mendelssohn's violin concerto. That was a notable occasion and one of the concerts that has stuck in my mind. It was a great performance by Mr. Perlman, who followed the violin concerto with Bruckner's seventh symphony which made the concert even better. We must also think of Jacequeline du Pré, that great cellist and a wonderful music maker. Tragedy overtook her, but she rose above it and passed on her talents and knowledge to young musicians in her wonderful master classes.
Disabled people in wheelchairs take part in the London marathon. From time to time I have thought that I might enter the London marathon, but I unthought it pretty quickly. The prospect of pounding around 26 miles is a little too much for me. However, I pay tribute to the people in wheelchairs who take part. It is incredible that they do so well.
We have recently debated Bills on abortion. I hope that such legislation does not lead to circumstances in which a baby which shows signs of being disabled before it is born is automatically aborted. That would be disgraceful. I have spoken to people born with disabilities who have told me that it is the only form of life or view of themselves that they have known. They believe that they have a right to live their lives in whatever form they were born.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also referred to building design. At election time we visit polling stations which all too often are in places that have no access for the disabled. Often polling booths are set up in small village halls or in odd corners here and there. Disabled people cannot get into those places. It is fundamentally important
624
to our democracy that all people should have the right to vote, and it is wrong that some may be put off exercising their democratic right simply because they cannot get into a polling station. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point.
Many buildings were not designed with the needs of the disabled in mind. That applies not simply to access to buildings, but to lifts. Someone in a wheelchair might be able to get into a lift, but be unable to reach the buttons to get to the required floor. The designers must bear in mind small things like that when they design buildings and the services in them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has already mentioned trains. It is very difficult to adapt a train to the needs of the disabled once it has been built. However, if a little thought was given to the design in the earliest stages, every disabled person who wanted to travel by train would know that he could do so. Occasionally disabled people may decide not to bother even setting off on the journey because they know that they will not be able to get on the train. A little thought would go a long way.
Buses and conductors have also been mentioned. These days we have those horrible things called OPOs—one-person operated buses. We often see people struggling with babies or shopping trying to get on to them. The disabled have no chance of getting on. Buses should be designed in such a way as to allow the disabled to board them. The fare-paying public would be willing to pay a little extra to have a conductor. The modern double-decker buses in London are not a patch on the old Routemaster which was one of the best buses ever designed or built.
A pavement is something which most hon. Members simply walk along. If a paving stone is sticking up a little, one might trip over it, utter an oath and walk on. The incident is quickly forgotten. But for disabled people, particularly the blind, such a paving stone could cause a crashing fall. Very often there are holes in pavements. The utilities come along and dig them up. That is fair enough; they probably have to do that. But more often than not, the hole is left inadequately guarded. There may be only a couple of cones on either side of the hole or a couple of rods stuck in the ground with a little sticky tape wound round them. The assumption is that most people will see the cones and ribbon and will take avoiding action. But a blind person cannot see the cones, ribbons or rods. Blind people have fallen into holes and hurt themselves seriously. It only needs a little thought. It is not very difficult to erect something slightly more rigid so that a blind person can knock against it with his stick and thus be warned of the obstruction.
Parked cars also constitute dangerous obstructions. If people park their cars on pavements there may not be enough room for a person in a wheelchair to pass and he may be forced out into the road. Blind people cannot always anticipate such obstructions. They will walk into parked cars or catch themselves on wing mirrors and hurt themselves. Again, it is a matter of a little thought, not only by those who are responsible for the design and layout of roads and pavements but by those who park their cars there. They see a gap, park their car and do not notice—they probably do not want to notice—that they have blocked ramps that were specifically constructed to enable someone in a wheelchair to get over the kerb. All too many of us are remarkably selfish. I appeal for a little thought for those who are less fortunate than we are.

625
All too often those of us who can see do not spot dog mess on the pavement. A blind person has no chance at all. The first that he or she knows about treading into something revolting is when he or she get home and smells it. By that time they have trodden it into their carpet. That is horrible. Many thoughtless people let their dogs out at the start of the day. Some dogs are almost latchkey dogs; they know that if they return at 6 o'clock their owners will be back to let them in. They spend the rest of the day running about. I am sure that you would rapidly rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I spoke at length about a dog registration scheme. Nevertheless, such a scheme would cause people to look after their dogs better. If people looked after their dogs better, that sort of incident would be less frequent.
Some organisations in my constituency are doing marvellous work. ARMS—Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis—has a facility that I have visited several times. It has all sorts of technology to help people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. One machine is almost like a diving chamber in which people can breathe pure oxygen at a higher pressure than normal. They find that helpful. Dial-a-ride has already been mentioned. I take this opportunity to take a swipe at London Regional Transport's regionalisation proposals. Dial-a-ride is presently organised on a local basis, and that is how local people want it to remain. They want to use it to visit local shops and visit friends locally. The vast majority do not want it to go miles away—they want it specifically for local activities. I hope that LRT will reconsider its proposals.
Dial—not to be confused with dial-a-ride—is devoted to the needs of disabled people and the resources that are due to them. Whitefield school in Walthamstow has acquired an excellent reputation for looking after children with all types of disability, especially autistic children. The parents of autistic children have great difficulties.
I congratulate my hon. Friend. This has been a marvellous occasion to discuss the disabled and the opportunities that should be open to them if people gave a little more thought and care. That message should go out from the House today.
11.54 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: The motion pays tribute to people with disabilities. I shall mention the achievements of one of my constituents, Melvyn Wall, who lives at Delves road, Killamarsh. Two years ago, he had a foot removed, and subsequently both legs were amputated below the knee. He now has artificial limbs and does his best in the circumstances. The motion pays tribute to
"people with disabilities and to the dedication of individuals and organisations that support them."
The two organisations that support Melvyn Wall at the moment are the Sheffield Area Limbless Association and the Mosborough citizens advice bureau. The motion welcomes
"the measures taken by the Government, by local government".
North-East Derbyshire district council is to be complimented on moving Melvyn Wall from a house on a hillside, because it was impossible for him to move around and about, to an old person's bungalow—although he is only 44—on flat ground opposite a supermarket and a
626
newsagent. When he looks out of his window and sees that there is hardly anyone in the supermarket, he does his shopping. Because of his disability he cannot stand in a long queue waiting to be served. The bus stop is also nearby, which would add considerably to his mobility if it were not for the Government's action in removing his mobility allowance. I have mentioned that matter previously. If he had the mobility allowance, he could involve himself in activities within the community, just as he did before his legs were removed.
Melvyn Wall's home is only two miles from the Rother Valley country park. A disabled person needs to be able to transfer by bus or taxi to reach the artificial lake at the centre of the park. If Melvyn could get there, he could spend the day moving slowly from seat to seat around the lake, as he often did when he was able bodied. However, that is beyond him because it has been decided that his mobility allowance should be taken away.
Melvyn Wall occasionally visited Sheffield, which is nearby, but he has been able to do so only once recently. He has depended on his brother collecting him and taking him in his car. He used to watch local cricket matches at Killamarsh junior school. He now finds it difficult to move out of his house and get around readily and easily. Many activities are beyond him. Even to visit relatives he is dependent upon others collecting him.
In the current circumstances, Melvyn Wall cannot afford a holiday, which would be of considerable benefit to him. It takes him an hour or so to do what I found to be an eight-minute journey to the post office. It is then impossible for him to walk back up the hill, yet it has been decided by the Department of Social Security that Melvyn Wall is quite able to get around.
Reference has been made to Douglas Bader and his achievements. Melvyn Wall has achieved much. His financial circumstances mean that the ordinary requirements of life are beyond him.
At one time, he worked in opencast mining and, before that, he was a farmer. He used to be quite interested in gardening. Luckily, the council cuts his grass, but the remainder of his garden is looked after by his 80-year old neighbour, out of the goodness of his heart. Melvyn cannot employ him to do the sorts of work that, otherwise, he would find beneficial. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the case that has been put to him several times by myself, by the citizens advice bureau at Mossborough and by the Sheffield Area Limbless Association, which is well aware of the difficulties and problems that Melvyn faces.
If we do not deal correctly with disabled people and give them the right to be fully and actively involved in society, we do not just damage and harm them, we damage and harm society. There are many people with considerable abilities who could contribute towards the well-being of communities, but who are kept away from jobs, social activity and involvement with us. We would be better people if we associated with them in terms of their abilities—which are quite normal abilities—and had some understanding of their capacity to overcome their considerable disabilities.
It has already been mentioned that the televising of the House should provide some form of signs so that deaf people could benefit. I have spoken about the poll tax in many areas, but the meeting that I remember most was held in a deaf club in Chesterfield. A signer stood by my side. The full involvement of the deaf audience, the way

627
that they discussed the issues through the signer, and their interest in the debate were quite astonishing. People who did not have access to information about the poll tax had the opportunity to discuss it with someone who had served on the Standing Committee that considered the poll tax Bill. That was of considerable benefit to me, as well as being a valuable meeting for those who attended. Involvement with disabled people is beneficial for us, as well as for them.
I wish to bring a second case to the attention of the House; it concerns Ken Davis, a constituent of mine who lives in Clay Cross. He has been involved in a campaign to maintain access for disabled people in the centres of towns that have introduced pedestrian areas—which might be a great boon for able-bodied people, but which cause considerable problems for disabled people who are excluded from taking their vehicles into those areas.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned the abuse of the orange badge scheme. However, we must remember what it is used for and the fact that many disabled people are dependent on its operation. Therefore, any action on that scheme must ensure that those who are entitled to use it are given a full opportunity to do so.
Mr. Bowis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was that some people who are not disabled use the orange badge, which gives the whole scheme a bad name. We should pursue such people and make that abuse a criminal offence. Those to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly referred could then use the scheme to obtain access to exactly the places he mentioned.
Mr. Barnes: Disabled drivers are dependent on the scheme as it currently operates. They often have great difficulty in handling situations in the middle of towns.
The campaign has been running in Chesterfield—a neighbouring constituency of mine—which has a fine town centre and a fine market with cobblestones. The cobbles create a problem for disabled people, but it is an even greater problem if they are excluded from the area by what might be considered a very progressive scheme for able-bodied people.
Ken Davis felt so strongly that he disobeyed the byelaws arid had to appear in court. In fact, he wanted to go to prison to highlight the campaign. He did not go to prison because someone paid his fine, against his wishes. He still does not know who that person was.
That led me to table a number of written questions about disablement to the Minister. One of the central problems is that of disabled people who have to appear in court. Of course, there is also the question of facilities in prison if a disabled person ends up there because of his actions.
I was sent Prison Report—the quarterly review of the Prison Reform Trust. It had published an article by Baroness Masham called "Disabled access to the gaols". She said:
"One young man I came across while visiting a young offenders institution could not turn his wheelchair round in the cell because it was so narrow. He was allowed to spend his sentence in the hospital after he appealed to me, as a member of the Board of Visitors, for help. The prison staff, however, felt he would feel more 'normal' in a cell. One can imagine the utter frustration he felt at not being able to turn his chair—he became a prisoner in more ways that one".
628
Baroness Masham suggested a number of provisions within prisons so that proper access facilities would be available for disabled prisoners so that they could live as normal a life as possible.
Disabled people are as varied as able-bodied people. Some may be imprisoned for offences that we may criticise, and they will serve their sentences. However, some highly principled people may be in prison because of stances that they have taken on certain issues. Ken Davis is one such person, and there could well be many more because of the Government's unwillingness to consider disability and severe physical handicap in setting poll tax rebates. A number of people might pursue their protest against, or inability to pay the poll tax to a stage where they become open to court action. There cannot be an attachment of earnings because they have no earnings to attach. The bailiffs cannot be sent in because they do not have furniture that they can take. They only have furniture that cannot be taken because it is essential to their needs. The only avenue left for many disabled people who have not paid their poll tax might be imprisonment.
I hope that the concern of Ken Davis and those who campaigned with him about pedestrian areas will be seriously considered. It is not adequately taken into account in Government documents such as "Getting the right balance"—guidance on vehicle restrictions in pedestrian zones—which seeks to deal with that issue. It seeks to deal with the problem by giving guidance on vehicle restrictions in pedestrian zones.
The Government are given some praise in the motion, yet they have been given many opportunities to assist the disabled. It is not just a matter for the Department of Social Security. I served on the Standing Committee on the 1989 Employment Bill, on which the question of dismissal notices arose. The Government decided in their wisdom that instead of being given written notice of the reason if one is dismissed within six months, the period should be extended to two years.
The Opposition tabled an amendment providing for disabled people to receive such notification at whatever time they were dismissed, because of their special circumstances. Mention was made of the problems that the disabled have in finding work and because of the improper operation of the quota provision. A disabled person might find himself removed from a job because of the pressure that it imposes, but even if he is dismissed for reasons that may be entirely beyond his control and which have nothing to do with his disability, he still needs a dismissal notice for his own benefit and to confirm to potential employers the reasons why he had to leave his previous job.
The London information and advisory service for disabled people on arts and entertainment feels that legislation should include a stipulation that once a year, employers should receive a visit from the Disability Advisory Service, for the purpose of inspecting access facilities, identifying possible adaptions to help the disabled, and reviewing progress with the employer's recruitment policies and practices. Perhaps one of that service's first visits should be to the House of Commons. Other right hon. and hon. Members have experience of meeting deputations of the disabled and of trying to take them to Committee rooms, when the greatest difficulty is encountered. One wonders also what arrangements there are for disabled people wanting to enter Strangers Gallery,

629
or even approaching the building or standing outside it. It would be appropirate for the House to get its own priorities right, to serve as a marker for others.
12.22 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not having been present at the start of the debate as I had to deal with urgent constituency matters. None the less, I have received reports from my hon. Friends of the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), and I add my voice to those who have congratulated him on his initiative with a carefully thought-out motion. He may have spoken for a record amount of time for a Friday morning—79 minutes—but I am sure that it was pure gold all the way. I shall certainly read the whole of my hon. Friend's speech in Hansard to catch up with all his points, although I am aware of the main ones and of some of the ideas that he advanced.
This is one of those Friday debates in which the House often comes into its own in terms of common sense and a high degree of wisdom because party issues are set aside. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his work over many years and for the expertise that he has shown us all. In naming him first, I pay no less tribute to my own right hon. and hon. Friends and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He is a politician of great compassion, he knows a vast amount about his subject, and he has done a great deal of work on behalf of the Government. That shows that the Government themselves attach great importance to the problems confronting the disabled, as do all civilised members of society. There is a feeling that, as the British Rail slogan goes, we are getting there, but one must inevitably add that it is happening only gradually.
My interest in the subject stems from being a member of the old board of governors of the royal national orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore—both the country and the town hospital—and president of its league of friends. I am also chairman of the Save the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Action Group, so I had the privilege of gaining, as an amateur, a great deal of knowledge about various mental and physical disabilities.
The problems confronting the disabled are enormous, and the demand for improving provision is, by definition, limitless. Government must order things in accordance with competing priorities for public expenditure, and the same is true of the legitimate use of private money. The irony and frustration is that as one proceeds along that complicated road, the demand for a 100 per cent. quality of life for the disabled, so far as it can be achieved in everyday living and working, rises exponentially.
For example, we are much more used these days to buildings being equipped with ramps—automatically in the case of new buildings, in accordance with Government requirements in respect of public buildings, with the private sector following suit. However, many disabled people complain to me that at the top of the ramp there is often a forward-opening door that they somehow have to open and then get through in their wheelchairs. If ramps are installed for the benefit of wheelchair users, they
630
should be supplemented with electric doors—though they are more expensive and need special maintenance. A new sports centre being constructed in this country is, because of budget cuts, unable to incorporate electric doors. One of the most difficult tasks for a person in a wheelchair to perform is getting through a door. Everything else in that sports centre is fantastic and marvellous, yet there is that example of society trying to grapple with budget problems and limitations.
Demand for improvements is being made not only by the articulate lobbies for the disabled of which many right hon. and hon. Members have experience in their own constituencies and to which we pay tribute, but by the public at large. We should inculcate consideration for the needs of the disabled early in the education process. I regret that when I was at school I was not brought up to work and play alongside the disabled, so that it would become for me a matter of routine to know almost instinctively the assistance that they need. Often, the mentally and physically able person unwittingly adopts a condescending attitude towards the disabled. We all do that. On how many occasions do we, on meeting someone in a wheelchair, shout at them as though they were deaf as well? The techniques and the information need to be put into people's minds at a young age. The most adaptable person is the child. In that way, children will treat disabled people normally, and not condescendingly as though there were something strange about them. The "Aren't I good and gracious because I am dealing patiently with you, a disabled person, although I am a busy important person" attitude drives disabled people mad. I would put able-bodied schoolchildren in wheelchairs so that they experience the problems of trying to get about in one.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). He knows that access to and in stations is a nightmare for disabled people. The costs of rebuilding and adaptation are enormous. Even if it were possible to get disabled people on to the platforms—many stations and tube stations have long flights of stairs—they face the nightmare of getting on and off the train. How can a guard keep the train waiting longer on the off-chance that a disabled person may be trying to get on? These are huge problems.
I reiterate the plea—Ministers have justifiably become thoroughly sick of hearing it because I have been making it for so many years and I therefore apologise in advance—that the royal national orthopaedic hospital must be saved. I believe that the Government are committed to doing that. Complex discussions and negotiations about its inclusion in the relevant future structure of services will take place. Its work is fantastic. There is no other word for it.
Many institutions throughout the country pursue similar work. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I am so intensely proud of this fabulous institution and what it has done. If hon. Members doubt that and say, "Yes, yes, we have heard all that before", I invite them to visit the hospital either with or without me—preferably without me because I shall drive them mad by going on about it all the time while they go through the corridors and wards and see the work done there, particularly on spinal injuries, implanting metal pieces into broken limbs, and so on.

631
My right hon. Friend the Minister has a standing invitation to visit. I would even tempt him by saying that if he comes soon, we could arrange for a Nicholas Scott plaza to be named or whatever he wants.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Or a Nicholas Scott avenue.
Mr. Dykes: Or a Nicholas Scott avenue. There are various possibilities and it would be worth while. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will come shortly. He has made it clear that he will. It is a vital national institution for many people. Over the years, we have been inundated with letters from all over the world.
A cloud hangs over the hospital. There is an erosion of morale and a lack of confidence because of the closure of certain facilities. I know that the hard-faced bureaucrats in the Department—they must be hard-faced because if they were sentimental they would make bad decisions—do not like gardens outside hospitals. They think that gardens are too expensive. They like to see rationalisation and square concrete buildings which are easy to administer and pay for. In reality, this hospital deserves the support of society, like others such as Stoke Mandeville, for which the Jimmy Saville campaign has done so much.
Mr. Summerson: May I invite my hon. Friend to turn his attention to another institution—the House of Commons? My hon. Friend will be aware of the scheme for tax-exempt payroll giving to charities which the Government introduced recently. Is he aware that only a tenth of hon. Members use it and give to charity in that way?
Mr. Dykes: I note what my hon. Friend says and thank him for his interesting point. I am sure that more hon. Members will note it when they return on Monday.
My hon. Friend mentioned multiple sclerosis in his excellent speech. It is one of the worst of the terrible diseases and disabilities, mental and physical, to contemplate. The staggering everyday heroism of individual cases moves us all to tears. Spasticity is a different condition. I recall a moving part of the biography of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the former Labour Chancellor. He and his wife invited a young boy who was completely paraplegic and spastic to No. 11 to have a look round. The young man became famous for writing poetry and won a special prize from the Spastic Society. That formed the theme of a later story.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the case of Jacqueline du Pré, who attended the equivalent of my multiple sclerosis unit in Harrow. Once again, one must pay tribute to her courage.
It is also important to record the difficulty of able people to appreciate the horror—I am not sure that "disease" is the right word—and the terrible affliction of MS for which there is no-known cure. Treatment can, to some extent, appease MS but that depends whether the pattern of the disease is horizontal or growing. In the latter stages of the disease, Jacqueline du Pré displayed amazing courage which moved us to make greater efforts to help those with it. I understand that the Government are under pressure on all their budgets, entitlements and requirements, particularly on health, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the need to use more public money in
632
research on MS. I know that considerable research is now being undertaken and presumably there will be a breakthrough one day.
I know that the national health service was a little ambiguous about the use of oxygen cylinders, but I am pleased that the Government are positively encouraging their use. There are still people who believe they are not the right way to go about it, but they provide great physical relief. For that reason the local unit at Harrow is doubling in size. Local schools have raised staggering amounts of money—the money has come mainly from sixth form colleges, but other schools are also involved. Such fund-raising shows that society wants to get involved and does not want to shut away those suffering from MS and other diseases. Society has a psychological need to be involved to help people with that terrible affliction as well as other disabilities.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is also psychologically committed and I wish him well in his future work. He will understand when I say that it is not just private effort that is needed, but Government help to fund the research that will find a cure.
12.36 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are having this debate this morning. I apologise for being absent for part of it, but I had to receive some important guests who are now in the Gallery.
The debate centres on the question of society's attitude to people with disabilities—the language people use emphasises that. I know that it is unwitting, but many people drop into the vernacular and talk about disabled people. Those people are not disabled as people, but are people with disabilities and there is a big difference. We should always try to use the term "people with disabilities", especially as the effects on many can be mitigated or overcome with different attitudes or support. It is clear that society's attitude towards people with disabilities are still wanting. Consider the number of people with disabilities who suffer unemployment through no fault of their own, live in inadequate or unsuitable housing, and have difficulty travelling round and pursuing their careers.
I shall add one example to the many that have been quoted. A good friend of mine, Nabil Shaban, who is a fine actor, performed the part of Ayatollah Khomeini in a Howard Brenton play about "The Satanic Verses". My friend has also give a number of good performances on television. Two years ago he was offered the part of Micro Man in a Christmas show on Granada television. He was then taken off the show; it was thought to be a bad idea to have someone with such disabilities appearing on a children's programme because it might upset children. That was an absolutely disgraceful decision. I was pleased to join Nabil and a number of his friends in a demonstration outside the offices of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to demand that that decision was reversed. Nabil was demonstrating not for himself, but for all actors with disabilities of all types and the attitude adopted towards them by television companies and commerce.
It is right to talk about the media image of people with disabilities. Often people with disabilities appear on television or radio programmes to talk about other people with disabilities. Why are not the television announcers

633
people with disabilities? Why do advertising agencies in general go for the young, fit and mobile to promote their goods? We must include those people in society. I understand the points made about education, and I favour as much integration as possible. We must be careful that the future of special schools is not decided solely on financial grounds, but on the grounds of the greatest benefit for children suffering from disabilities. If children with disabilities are offered places in what one would call ordinary schools, a couple of factors must be borne in mind. First, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) rightly said, there must be full disabled access throughout each of those buildings. We must not wait until someone in a wheelchair arrives at the college before tackling the problem.
A constituent of mine who is fully wheelchair-bound tried to get into a college. We thought that we had secured her a place on a suitable course and then found that she could not enter the building, apart from the ground floor. She did not see why she should have her lectures in the staff room because she could not get upstairs into the lecture theatre where the other students went. She was right. Why should she be treated in that way? There must be an acceptance of the need for full facilities.
Where there are hearing, sight or mobility-impaired children in a school, there must be sufficient allocation of resources to that school to ensure that they are not left out of events and are given support and individual tuition where required. If not, integration becomes integration for ambulant and able-bodied children but not for those with disabilities. Integration becomes its opposite and those with disabilities become separated from the rest of the school.
It is sad that although many local authorities have worked hard to try to improve facilities for those with disabilities, build better and improved housing and encourage the movement of people to ground floor accommodation where appropriate, far too often they have insufficient resources. My authority has just been poll tax-capped, as have a number of others, and people with disabilities will suffer because of the cuts in local authority expenditure. Similarly, the enormous cut in house building means that there are fewer places for people in desperate need of converted flats. The sale of council and housing association property means that the possibility of good housing for people with disabilities is rapidly diminishing, which is serious. We cannot keep saying, "We admire what everybody is doing", if the Government are not prepared to provide the necessary resources for local authorities to carry out the policies required.
I shall concentrate mainly on mobility and public transport. Clearly, those who suffer from disabilities of any sort find it extremely difficult to get around—that is fairly obvious. Their position is often made much more difficult because of simple factors such as the design of pavements, kerb let-downs and pedestrian crossings, and the difficulties of crossing roads. There is also a problem with the provision of vehicles and public transport. An interesting and important debate is being conducted in London about the provision of facilities by London Regional Transport and local authoritis.
The chairman of the London Dial-a-Ride Users Association, Keith Armstrong, who is a good friend of
634
mine, has done an enormous amount of work on the subject. When Parliament was lobbied the other week, hon. Members were treading over themselves to get outside the building to be photographed with people entering in wheelchairs. It is just as well that they were being photographed outside the building because those in wheelchairs could not have come inside to take part in a proper lobby.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, it is absolutely disgraceful that in a building, in which legislation is passed about employment facilities and access to buildings for those with disabilities it is impossible for people in wheelchairs to get around. They can do so only via a circuitous route round the top of the car park and through Star Chamber Court. Only if their chairs can be squeezed into the lift, can they then get into the gallery to see and hear debates. Exactly the same applies to other parts of the building.
It is high time that those responsible for the administration of the House stopped pussyfooting round and ensured that all the necessary alterations are done immediately to allow full access to all with disabilities. We need braille signs and easy access ramps throughout the building. It smacks of hypocrisy that Parliament of all places does not have access for people with disabilities. We cannot go on like this; no one will take seriously what is said here about disability if people with disabilities cannot get round the building.
Keith Armstrong also said:
"Because buses and trains are mostly inaccessible to anyone not fully able bodied, we have to rely on Dial-A-Ride as our bus service. With insufficient funds, Dial-A-Ride can only offer on average, one trip every eleven weeks to our users—we are therefore demanding sufficient finance for Dial-A-Ride to enable us to offer every user just one trip a week. A modest demand, compared to the variety of journeys normally available on buses and trains for most people."
Keith is right. Although some local authorities take great pride in their provision of dial-a-ride and in the pioneering work done in setting it up—not least in Islington, where we have a good service which is a great inspiration to many, run by people with disabilities who manage the system to make it work as well as it can—those services are grossly underfunded. The dial-a-ride lobby asks for much wider provision of facilities.
The London Committee on Accessible Transport sent out a circular on 7 June, only three weeks ago, containing this proposal:
"That further work be undertaken to adopt a strategic approach to various transport schemes in London, and so as to draw the various funding agencies together. In this context, consideration should be given to the suggestion that members of Dial-A-Ride schemes who would be entitled to concessionary fare permits should be permitted to use them to obtain free travel on Dial-A-Rides."
At the moment fares on dial-a-ride are quite high. The committee is asking for interchangeability between London Regional Transport's concessionary fares and dial-a-ride. That is an excellent suggestion.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that his Department is prepared to offer sympathetic assistance in this matter, if necessary by leaning on the Department of Transport, which is the Ministry responsible for LRT. I hope that he will also assure us that the concessionary fare scheme is not about to go under. Every time LRT puts up its fares someone has to pay, and the money comes from the London boroughs, some of which have been poll tax-capped and thus find it increasingly difficult to meet

635
these bills. It is crucial that we keep the concessionary fares scheme in London; without it, pensioners and people with disabilities will suffer a great loss of mobility.
Recently, a policy statement emerged from the London Regional Passengers Committee about the provision of transport for people with disabilities. Section 9, which deals with overcoming disabilities and which warmly welcomes the growing public and political awareness of the problems of transport for people with walking difficulties, for the visually or hearing-impaired, and for people pushing wheelchairs, states:
"But, even given the requisite resources and political will, many years will elapse before full accessibility to London's public transport system becomes a reality. In the interim, parallel 'para-transit' systems such as dial-a-ride and taxicard will have an essential part to play. At present they are desperately under-resourced, and able to meet only a fraction of the suppressed level of demand. If only one trip a week for each subscriber is still far beyond the capacity of the dial-a-ride service, then to offer its users the freedom to travel with the same ease and frequency as passengers on conventional public transport systems may seem an ambition wholly incapable of attainment. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that nothing less will satisfy the aspirations of those who are dependent on these services, and that a determined effort must be made to enhance the scale of their provision."
Such a determined effort means first examining the funding arrangements of LRT. One problem is that a financial regime has been imposed upon London Regional Transport and it has to make a return on capital. No other public transport system in Europe has to make such a return and none has the slightest intention of doing so because the philosophy in other parts of Europe is that public transport is essential for a civilised city.
London fares are high and the service is inadequate. In some cases, because of the obsession with a return on capital rather than the provision of service, the service is downright dangerous. As a result, everything must be carefully costed and simply because of the costs involved there is resistance to providing the service necessary for disabled people. It should be accepted that those with disabilities should be able to travel openly and freely on the public transport system. To bring that about we need a change in bus design.
I am a great admirer of the Routemaster bus, which is probably the finest bus ever made. However, although it is by no means the worst bus to which to gain access, it requires modification. The Volvo is probably the worst bus to get on and off because there are several steps at the door. The Routemaster should have a lower step at the back to make it easier for disabled people to get on. If all the thought that goes into designing buses such as those in the Careline range was put into the general design of buses, we would have a much better system.
The buses used at airports to take people from aeroplane to customs and immigration have low steps and it is easy to get in and out of them. I timed the loading and unloading of 60 ambulant people on such a bus at Heathrow. It took one and a half minutes to fill the bus and one and a half minutes to empty it. Surely it is possible to use such buses to transport disabled people who would find them easier to get on and off? There seems to be a resistance by the bus industry to provide such public transport. Perhaps the Department should put pressure on the industry to overcome that resistance.
There is a badly publicised but nevertheless enforced policy by London Underground Ltd. that those in wheelchairs or people who are not ambulant cannot go on
636
the deep tube lines. Such people are not allowed on the Picadilly, Victoria or Northern lines and that presents a major difficulty. Disabled people who want to travel round London and who do not have a car must use the bus or the tube. At busy times it could take an hour or more to get a bus from Finsbury park where I live to central London. That journey would take just 20 minutes on the underground, but disabled people are not allowed to use the deep lines.
The journey from Finsbury park to here by tube and bus entails going down about 35 steps at Finsbury park station. If the traveller wishes to get a bus at Leicester square, he has to get off the tube there, walk up the steps and then take the escalator. It is almost impossible for disabled people to do that. Our underground system should not deny access to such people.
I was one of the people who blocked the London Underground (Victoria) Bill promoted by London Underground Ltd. I did so because I thought that LRT was paying insufficient attention to the need for people in wheelchairs to move between Victoria underground station and the British Rail station there. I warn LRT that if it brings forward a Bill for the construction of a Chelsea to Hackney line, many of us will block it unless it contains detailed provisions for disabled people. We will do that to encourage London Underground to come forward with serious proposals about mobility on the system. There is no point in bringing in a Bill for a line that will move people rapidly round London if consideration is not given to those with disabilities.
Underground stations now have the notorious mechanical rottweilers, otherwise known as ticket barriers. Their introduction was ludicrous because they are a danger to people with disabilities, people pushing prams or pushchairs, people carrying heavy shopping and those who have difficulty in walking. People get trapped by them every day. Why cannot we adopt the system that operates in Paris and in other cities where there are no barriers at exits but only at entrances? It is ludicrous that one has to get a ticket to get off the train as well as on. Clearly, if one has a ticket to get on a train, it is possible to get off it. We could easily get rid of all the barriers in zone 1, which would ease passenger movement and make travelling much safer.
A person who uses a wheelchair and who wants to travel on InterCity or other British Rail services is well advised by British Rail to book a seat. The seat can be taken out and the wheelchair manoeuvered in. I understand the difficulties with that operation, but it means added difficulties with wheelchair-bound people in moving around the country. We must think about these matters more, and transport organisations should be encouraged to do much more.
The most recent edition of "Transport Innovation" includes a petition for accessible buses. It gives a good example of the pressure that has been put on British Rail and London Transport. "Transport Innovation" states:
"700,000 people in London … are barred from using public transport due to thoughtless design. Of these, 20 per cent. cannot use buses, 33 per cent. cannot use the tube and one quarter cannot use British Rail."
Many people are therefore prevented from travelling on those modes of transport. I hope that there will be some improvements.
I am not filled with great hope. I have quoted extensively from journals the views of those representing

637
people with disabilities. The "London Transport Annual Business Plan 1990–91"—a glossy document—devotes just one column on one page to "Facilities for Disabled Passengers." It states:
"On the Underground, features such as improved stairs, better handrails and more seats on platforms will be included wherever possible in new and modernised stations. Both new and refurbished Underground trains will also include better handrails and improved passenger operated door controls.
Particular attention will be given to the needs of passengers with sensory handicaps. Improved audible information, clearer signs and better lighting are of particular benefit. The 'bus stopping' signs and the installation of dot matrix indicators on Underground platforms are of great value, and hearing-aid users benefit from the installation of 'induction loops' at all station ticket office windows."
I agree with all that—it is splendid. I wish, however, that the plan went further and that I had more confidence that London Regional Transport will introduce the measures with the necessary speed.
The Association of London Authorities produced an interesting 10-point charter on "Accessible Transport in London". I do not want to detain the House long, but this is an important element in transport. Point 1 states:
"London needs a strategic transport authority, accountable to representatives from all boroughs, administered, financed and controlled by them."
That is essential. As I said, the problem with LRT is that it is given a commercial set of targets which are impossible to marry up with the needs of London people and the social needs of London as a whole. We need a different attitude in the administration of transport.
Secondly, the charter says that existing forms of conventional transport must be targeted towards improvements, such as shelters, seating, grab handles, colour coding on vehicles and information signs. I am glad to say that, by and large, London Underground Ltd. has largely taken that on board. I hope that it will be done quickly. I hope, too, that guard dogs for the blind will be allowed to travel on deep-level tubes. Unless I am mistaken, blind people are asked not to take their dogs on deep-level underground trains. That is extremely unfair and unnecessary. Obviously, there is a difficulty with the use of escalators, but it could be overcome if there were sufficient staff at stations to assist people with guide dogs.
Point 3 refers to the planning of new public transport vehicles to take account
"of the needs of disabled and elderly passengers."
Fourthly, the charter states:
"Funding of the London Taxicard Scheme should be continued".
It should be continued because it is necessary to provide mobility. Fifthly, the charter refers to the expansion of Dial-a-Ride as a whole and states:
"There are now 29 Dial-a-Ride schemes throughout London, which are funded by central government through London Regional Transport. The budget for 1989–90 is £7.6 million for 29 separate schemes. Approximately 50,000 Londoners are members of Dial-a-Ride schemes. The current level of funding only permits an average of one trip per user each fortnight … 200,000 Londoners are eligible to be Dial-a-Ride members, but cannot be served because the demand already outweighs available resources."
That means that 200,000 people in London are denied mobility because they cannot get on the dial-a-ride schemes which are insufficiently funded and cannot, therefore, provide the necessary service.
638
Point 6 of the charter is important. It would not require a lot of money, but is a question of attitude. It advocates the prohibition of pavement parking, which is a menace throughout London. Many people thoughtlessly park their car on pavements because they are going to buy a packet of cigarettes or a newspaper from the newsagent. They do not think about the difficulties for people in wheelchairs who want to get past, for those pushing children in prams or for people with sight difficulties who, although not necessarily completely blind, may bump into the cars. I have frequently had disagreements with builders who have wantonly dropped piles of bricks on pavements. That is extremely dangerous. People should think about the dangers and there should be strict enforcement of the legislation on pavement parking. The enforcement of the legislation on the obstruction of pavements should be as strict as that on the obstruction of roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East spoke about pavement surfaces. Cobblestones may look attractive, but they are a menace for people trying to negotiate them in wheelchairs. Something should be done about that. There should also be dropped kerbs and textured pavements so that people with sight difficulties know when they are getting near the edge of the pavement.
Point 7 of the charter refers to the expansion of transport services to provide "equal transport opportunities" for disabled Londoners. Point 8 says:
"The shop-mobility scheme should be viewed as part of a transport network which enables disabled and elderly people to make full use of their local shopping facilities."
Point 9 says:
"Local authorities should operate a central brokerage scheme to ensure full use of accessible Council vehicles by local residents and groups."
That is important. Local authorities often have good vehicles for transporting people with disabilities, but they are in use only during the seven-hour or eight-hour working day and they are often not available to other groups at weekends. Such vehicles are a public asset and should be as readily available as possible at weekends. That proposal should be carried out. Point 10 of the charter refers to support for the orange badge scheme, despite some of the abuses suffered in recent years.
Running through all 10 points is a question of attitude. Finance is relevant, but equally relevant are the management of social services departments, transport schemes and other facilities. I am not happy that London Regional Transport proposes to appoint a committee if the Dial-a-Ride Users Association does not agree with its strategy and does not make nominations to the committee. Dial-a-ride users are the best people to manage the dial-a-ride scheme. They understand the difficulties of the schemes and are the best qualified to manage them. All transport undertakings should have places reserved on the management board for representatives of organisation of people who suffer from disabilities.
We pay a great deal of lip service to the problems of people with disabilities. There is far too much talk about charities to help them. We should move far more towards the idea of the right to mobility, the right to work and the right to independent living, with sufficient publicly financed resources to make those rights available. Those who suffer from various disabilities do so through no fault of their own, but because a great misfortune has befallen them. It is up to the rest of society to grant them the independence and normality of living that we expect for

639
ourselves. I am grateful for this debate today because it has at least given an opportunity for some of the points to be put forward.
1.3 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech. He will not expect me to follow him on his many points about transport in London. However, I want to underline the importance of two of his general points. The first was about attitude and terminology. He advocated the use of the term "people with disabilities" rather than the term "disabled people", which is too often used. He also made the point, extremely well, that the House should respond to the needs of people with disabilities who come to lobby their elected representatives.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for not being here for his speech. As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the First Scottish Standing Committee, which is considering the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill sat rather late last night and put some of our programmes a little behind. Nevertheless, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on the terms of the motion and I understand that he made an excellent and comprehensive speech on a subject which is of great and increasing interest to the country.
As I am a Scottish Member, it is perhaps appropriate that I should pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for all his work on the private Member's Bill that he successfully steered through the House during the previous Parliament.
The debate has concentrated to a considerable extent on access—in particular, access to transport facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) summarised the position correctly when he said that we have made progress—that is undoubtedly true—but that we have a great deal further to go.
I pay tribute to British Rail in Scotland for the genuine efforts that it has made. It has improved access to Barrhead station in my constituency for people with transport handicaps. A long campaign was conducted by local people. I should explain that Barrhead is a fairly substantial town about half an hour away from Glasgow with a very good rail service, so access to the station is important to the community. The campaign was conducted throughout with a great deal of good will on both sides, and access for those with transport handicaps has been substantially improved.
In addition, new stations are being built in the Greater Glasgow area as part of the reopening of stations programme, which is encouraging generally. I am particularly encouraged by the fact that ScotRail is to open a new station at Dumbreck which is about five minutes away from where I live. I recently went to look at the proposed provision. A great deal of thought had undoubtedly been given to the design of that station which I do not think would have happened many years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was right to refer to practical problems. It is all very well to have a proper ramp, but if there are difficulties with the door at the top of that ramp, many of the benefits will be taken away. The local authorities are facing those difficulties. My constituency covers the whole of the
640
Eastwood district council area and part of the Renfrew district council area. Both councils are concerned about the matter and Eastwood district council has received an award for its particularly well-designed council building, the Carmichael hall.
Progress has also been made with attitudes and that theme is clear from this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East made an important point about attitudes in schools and that was underlined very well by the hon. Member for Islington, North.
We have been talking about access to transport facilities. The hon. Member for Islington, North referred in particular to dial-a-ride and other facilities. I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister about the design of taxis, a matter which has been raised with me by my constituents. I understand that alternative designs of taxis are available and local authorities have powers to insist on designs that are helpful to those with access problems. I understand that Edinburgh district council is ensuring over a period of time that its taxis are better designed. Clearly we cannot move on that problem overnight because there is a difficulty with the taxis that are currently being used.
Taxis are not as important as buses and trains when we consider public transport as a whole. However, many disabled people who perhaps live away from established bus and train routes must depend on taxis. Therefore, the design of taxis is important.
We should all recognise that people with disabilities of whatever form consistently depend on other people. They depend on friends, relatives and neighbours to enable them to continue to live within the community. We are all aware of friends, neighbours and relatives who have given up a great deal to care for people with disabilities. The Government have received many comments from carers and their organisations which make it clear that extra resources must be allocated to those people. This week I had an opportunity, with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), to discuss the matter with the new secretary of the carers group in Scotland.
The Government decided to help carers before the publication of "The Way Ahead". I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the important changes that were announced last October. They have been welcomed by many people involved in caring and by the relatives and friends of people with disabilities. The changes include the introduction of a carer's premium and income support and housing benefit for people receiving invalid care allowance. The invalid care allowance earnings limit is to be raised from £12 to £20 a week. Invalid care allowance, as I understand it, will become available for the first time to many carers as a result of the Government's proposals to extend attendance allowance to the under-twos and to the terminally ill. A family with one parent staying at home to care for their severely disabled baby could have an increase in benefits of more than £65 a week as a result of the Government's changes. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the way in which they have responded to representations.
There should be as much assistance as is possible and reasonable for disabled people who want to achieve independence and want to go into the normal labour force. The lack of earned income is often a major cause of the gap between the average income of people with disabilities and that of the rest of the population. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned certain figures. Office of

641
Population Censuses and Surveys statistics show that only about 31 per cent. of disabled non-pensioners are in the normal labour market. There is a widely perceived need for a benefit that will correct that problem.
The Government have responded by introducing the new disability employment credit from April 1992 to make it easier for disabled people to take up jobs. It will help disabled people on low earnings. Disability employment credit is not a completely new idea, because it works in much the same way as family credit, which helps families on low earnings. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on what they have done to reduce disabled people's worry about what would happen if they tried to go into the labour force, were unsuccessful, and were subsequently temporarily worse off. That can be a problem. I do not claim to be an expert on the details of the various benefits and allowances, but, as I broadly understand the matter, the benefit system has been changed to eliminate that worry.
I hope that hon. Members will understand that I may need to depart for Scotland before the end of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on introducing this important debate. As so often happens on a Friday, the debate is an opportunity to contribute constructively and in a non-partisan way. I have no doubt that many people will find our proceedings of considerable interest.
1.18 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), I apologise because I shall shortly have to go back to my constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me.
I agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said, especially about the role of the carers, including relatives and neighbours, being fully recognised at long last. My right hon. Friend is not just the Minister for Social Security, he is the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. That shows a very welcome trend.
We should certainly not apologise for our record. Our spending has increased substantially. It is now about £8 billion, whereas a decade ago the amount was very much smaller and probably could not even have been separately analysed.
My right hon. Friend has been kind in our correspondence about the Guild of Disabled Homeworkers. Its members operate from the enterprise aid centre at Stag house, Woodchester, near Stroud in my constituency. The organiser is Mr. Francis Halton—a man of exceptional ability who has given much assistance to fellow disabled workers. It might be of interest to my right hon. Friend if I quote one or two sections from the guild's annual report. Thanks to my right hon. Friend, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the guild, as a result of which the annual report begins:
"The Prime Minister shares your concern that the initiative of disabled people needs to be rewarded and encouraged."
The report then states:
"This recognition of the need for the work of the Guild in a Downing Street letter confirming a prospect of grant aid was
642
most notable among many expressions of moral support which brightened the Guild's difficult and troubled 21st birthday year."
That also put the year into perspective by reviving memories of the bad old days when the guild's founders reported to previous incumbents of No. 10 that many local authorities and charities were exploiting disabled people by taking for themselves rewards that those who used initiative and skill in making saleable items at home were not allowed to earn. We must remember that at that time the disabled were limited to earning £1 a week before loss of state benefit. Before the coming of this Government, social services and charities bought the items as cheaply as possible, sometimes paying less than the cost of the materials. Sometimes they charged commissions, and then resold for profit or reward that they kept for themselves as payment for services.
The guild states, in its encouraging report:
"To relieve the distress caused by this regressive trading of years ago the guild volunteers set out to provide free marketing for disabled people and thereby give them fair access, which they now receive, to the rewards and the encouragement of the enterprise."
Later in the report, the guild further discussed the benefits of the free markets. As the earnings limit has now been raised from only £1 a week a decade ago to about £30 a week for many disabled people, the guild's volunteers have this year travelled further round the country than ever before giving free market displays and finding approval of their cause everywhere. Indeed, at Alexandra palace in London the free market exhibition was visited by thousands of professional carers. The general approval was underlined by the number of offers to assist in setting up a guild enterprise aid centre in or near London. I hope that that can be done.
The exchange of letters with my right hon. Friend related to the premises occupied by constituents. They are first-floor premises, so the stairs are a problem and there is no possibility of installing a lift. The guild described that in its report as a "premises crisis". It has also had a demand for an increase in rent. Its small work force is attempting to cope with an increasing flood of orders from throughout the country—much of it from charities and social services departments. It is now likely that the guild will lose its spacious headquarters, and a more affordable and accessible replacement will be needed.
It might assist the House if I explained the nature of the services provided by the guild. Its aid service continues to prove useful and the free markets have established their viability under experienced management. They have become well known for attractive displays of imaginative and well-made products at reasonable prices. I and my wife have visited the guild's premises on several occasions and can confirm that. The free material service continues to thrive with a plentiful supply of surplus materials willingly given and readily used to boost members' rewards. Both those services have helped to eliminate shoddy work by allowing slow workers to take more time and care.
One guild member has designed and developed new products and tools for making worktrays that are then fitted to wheelchairs. That project alone offers great possibilities for helping paraplegics and others, but unfortunately it is short of initial funding.
My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that there are 117 members of the guild in the Stroud area, which shows the considerable contribution that it makes.

643
He will be aware through our correspondence that the guild, because it is well organised, looks to the future with confidence—but faces the one difficulty of finding new headquarters.
Because of my right hon. Friend's comments, increased monetary support is in prospect, but it is important the guild relies only on building up its own strength. That means that the front-running volunteers must generate more support from distant members and their friends, by finding ways for them to share more fully in the charity's work, including fund raising. The report concludes:
"If the Prime Minister's reported concern becomes official policy"—
in view of recent announcements, we can say with certainty that it will—
"The revolution started by the Guild will be complete in the foreseeable future. This can be expected to mean that the initiative of disabled people, which was fair game for exploitation only a decade ago, would at last be allowed unrestricted access to the rewards and encouragement of free enterprise."
I hope that the guild will continue to thrive. I referred to its one main problem. It is fashionable to criticise local authorities, but I received considerable help from Stroud district council and in particular Mr. David Ashley, its director of planning, leisure and tourism until he entered into well-earned retirement a few weeks ago. His successor is also helping me. Mr. Ashley wrote to me last December saying that he had met Mr. Halton to ascertain precisely the guild's requirements for premises. He said that when he visited its headquarters, he learnt much more about the organisation and its history—and he, like me, was impressed by its efforts and products. He pointed out that the guild receives goods made by disabled people all over the country which are then sold in the free market, and that the guild makes no charge to the vendor for that service. He added:
"This enterprise obviously offers the disabled person working at home an outlet for the products, which were extremely well made and reasonably priced."
I confirm that that is true.
In 1976 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister again took an interest in the guild. It has been greatly encouraged by that interest over the 21 years of its history—or at least over the past 11. As a token of the guild's appreciation, Mr. Halton wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently:
"Since your office wrote to me on January 12 1976 that those disabled persons who wish to work should be encouraged to do so, much has been done by your Government to improve the lot of disabled people generally."
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister should have a share of that praise. He will receive an additional slice of praise if he will just look into the one small issue that I have raised.
The guild has been promised assistance for 1991, but given its problems with premises, it needs assistance preferably within the next few months. It may be that if the guild takes a lease on new premises, it will have to pay a form of premium.
I have described at length the work of the guild, and I am sure that none of us doubts its value. The guild has a temporary crisis. My right hon. Friend the Minister has been most kind and generous with his time in his exchange of correspondence with me, and is well aware of the problems to which I have referred. I should be grateful if he would keep them at the forefront of his mind.
1.28 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have had a good debate with little acrimony across the Floor of the House. Most hon. Members, no matter what their position, have spoken with the interests of disabled people in mind. I shall seek to reflect that in my remarks.
I pay the warmest possible compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), whose constituent I happen to be, on choosing this subject for debate today. I pluck at random three particular points from the motion. First, he pays warm tribute to the achievements of people with disabilities and to the dedication of individuals and organisations that support them. I am sure that I carry the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) with me—he was the first person to hold this office—when I say that one of the most rewarding aspects of the job is to meet the individuals who suffer from a disability of one sort or another and those who care and organise support for them. It is inspirational. At least once a week I try to get away from the piles of paper at the Department of Social Security to visit disabled people and those who care for and support them. It is much the most rewarding aspect of my work in Government.
Secondly, my hon. Friend said that wherever feasible the services that disabled people receive should be decided after consultation with the disabled people concerned. They should be involved in the process, not treated with condescension as objects of pity, and delivered services. They should be actively involved in the process of decision making. I shall return to that in a slightly light-hearted manner later.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend recognised, as we all do, that whatever progress has been made—substantial progress has been made in the past 20 years, embracing Governments of both parties—there are still too many obstacles confronting disabled people in various aspects of the lives that they would like to lead and have a right to lead. Those obstacles are being removed progressively and so long as I hold this office, I shall do my best to ensure that further progress is made.
I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) about the Guild of Disabled Homeworkers. As he said, we have been in correspondence about it. I have noted his remarks and shall have another urgent look at the matter.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea for choosing this subject and for the elegant and compassionate style in which he introduced it. It has been a wide-ranging debate. I say in no partisan sense that this is the first debate in which I have taken part as Minister for disabled people rather than Minister for the disabled. I know that the change in my title does not go as far as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would like, but it is a question of getting the title on the notepaper. We have struck a balance.
I am extremely glad that at last we have managed to get away from the condescending term, "the disabled". I have received several letters from individual disabled people and organisations for disabled people that have warmly welcomed the change. Some people may think that it is rather a trivial matter, but for many disabled people it is an important step and a recognition of their status. We

645
want to underline the crucial fact that people with disabilities are first and foremost people and individuals, who happen to suffer from a disability.
Some people outside Westminster believe that the Minister for disabled people has an executive role across the whole of government. Would that it were so, but it is not. My job as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is largely concerned with benefits for disabled people. I like to think, as I know that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe did when he held this office, that one has a role to encourage, cajole, bully and snap at the heels of other Departments to ensure that in developing policy initiatives they never forget the needs of those in our society who suffer from a disability. I pursue that role as actively as I can.
Before I comment on the debate, I publicly apologise to the staff at the orthotic research and locomotor assessment unit at Oswestry, which I should have been visiting this morning. Alas, it is the second time that I have had to postpone a visit to that unit. It does splendid work. In 1981 it won a Design Council award for its swivel walker and it is now working on the development of parawalkers. I hope that I can make good my omission today by visiting that unit in the near future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that we should not be too sombre when we talk about disabilities—there is an awful tone that sometimes creeps into people's voices when they talk about disability. I have been able to visit various places and have seen the steps taken by children suffering from cerebral palsy or by accident-injured teenagers. We who are able-bodied, temporarily at least, may consider such tiny steps trivial, but when one sees the sheer joy and sense of achievement felt by those disabled people, it is immensely rewarding. We should not be sombre, but we should be concerned to do our best to ensure that public and private policy is as well tuned to their needs as possible. We, too, should share some of the joy that those people are able to achieve in life.
A number of important points have been made in the course of the debate and I shall seek to deal with as many as possible. There are a range of matters that interact in terms of the quality of life that disabled people are eventually able to enjoy. Today my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has published a consultative document called "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities". That follows his Department's review of services for people with disabilities. The review will carry forward a number of themes that have been established in the past decade. It aims to maximise the participation of people with disabilities in the mainstream non-specialist services, particularly the training programmes. It welcomes the flexible approach that the newly established training and enterprise councils, the TECs—can take in that regard. It looks to improve the quality of the specialist services for disabled people through assessment, counselling and rehabilitation and to draw better on the contributions that the voluntary and private sectors can make.
In essence, the document is about increasing the opportunities for severely disabled people to be placed in firms alongside the non-disabled. It looks to strengthen the
646
promotion of good practice to employers. It is a substantial document that I have not yet had the opportunity to study in depth.
I am sure that hon. Members who have taken part in this debate will want to look carefully at my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. For the purposes of the debate, I shall summarise the main proposals. The document considers legislation and particularly the requirement that employers employ a quota of registered disabled people equal to 3 per cent. of the work force. The document analyses the weaknesses of the present quota system and also considers the weaknesses of the alternative approaches that have been advanced. At the same time, however, the document acknowledges that the retention of the quota may be necessary, at least for the time being, to prevent the wrong signals being sent to employers and others. The document invites comments on those specific proposals.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister is summarising a document that hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that they should have seen. I have just been handed a press release of today's date issued by the Department of Employment. It states:
"The Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Michael Howard, has today announced in a written reply the publication of a Consultative Document on employment and training services for people with disabilities … The Consultative Document reports on a review by the Employment Department of its programmes and services for people with disabilities."
Is it not serious that a consultative document is still unavailable from the Vote Office? Will the Minister urgently ensure that the document, which I understand was released to the press several hours ago, is made available to hon. Members before the conclusion of this debate? It is surely discourteous to hon. Members from both sides of the House that a document of such importance and relevance to the debate has been made available outside the House for some hours while we have still not seen it. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think that it was important to make that point.
Mr. Scott: I understood that the document would have been made available in the Library and the Vote Office by 11 o'clock this morning. If it was not, I apologise to the House. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that investigations are being carried out into what has happened. I anticipated that the document would be available to hon. Members so that as I assessed it they would have the opportunity of commenting on it.
We believe that the best results will be achieved by the effective education and persuasion of employers. The document makes proposals for that. It also suggests that, over five years, we should reach the position whereby most assessment is done by locally based employment department teams covering the whole country. Comments on how such teams could be supported by outside organisations are being sought by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Much greater use of voluntary and other appropriate organisations to deliver rehabilitation is also proposed.
The document also suggests improving the departmental specialist counselling and assessment, management and training of staff, and bringing together those whose main concern is people with disabilities into an integrated specialist service. My right hon. and learned Friend has affirmed his intention to move over a period, the balance

647
of the sheltered employment programme for people with severe disabilities towards the more cost-effective sheltered placements with employers. Of course, sheltered workshops and factories will still have an essential role to play for those for whom sheltered placements are unsuitable.
The document also proposes better use of non-specialist services. Some 15 years ago, help to most people with disabilities was provided through special services. In the 1980s that pattern changed and the advantages of integration are now fully recognised. Full access for people with disabilities is an important feature of youth training and jobcentre services. My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to carry that further and provide better training for those involved in the specialist services, encourage TECs to use imagination to help people with disabilities and introduce audits of non-specialist programmes against the needs of clients with disabilities.
Most importantly, as a Government we are determined to secure the commitment of employers. Whatever legislative framework we put in place, we need effective ways of persuading employers to adopt good practice. The 1980s saw major innovations, including a code of good practice and the establishment of the disablement advisory service. My right hon. and learned Friend wants to carry that further. Proposals and issues raised include better training for the disablement advisory service, greater involvement by the employers' organisations and the introduction of a symbol for employers to use to express their commitment to good practice. That will be discussed further with the relevant interested parties before final details are decided.
Taken together with the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in January, in "The Way Ahead" for a new structure of disability benefits, these proposals make an important contribution to the removal of obstacles to personal achievement at work for people with disabilities, to which I alluded earlier. Comments on the proposals are being invited from a wide range of interested parties and decisions will be taken at the end of a six-month consultation period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned the education of young people who suffer from disabilities. The Education Act 1981 established a new framework for special education in England and Wales; it was implemented in 1983. In essence, it abolished statutory categories of handicap as the basis for special education. The emphasis of the Act is on identifying the special education needs of the child, then deciding the appropriate special education provision he requires to meet those needs.
Special education needs are defined as covering all learning difficulties which are significantly greater than those experienced by the majority of children of the same age. The term also covers any child with a disability that prevents him or her from making use of the educational facilities provided in schools. I do not believe that this is the time to go into great detail about how this policy is being pursued, but in January 1988 there were about 140,000 children with statements of special education needs in English schools.
A balance must be struck. There will always be some young people who will need special education, but I believe that the more we can educate children with special education needs in the regular school system, the better. That is better for the children, because although I admire
648
many of the special schools in this country, some of them tended in the past to be slightly over-protective towards children in their care. Children with special education needs benefit from being in the same classrooms as those who do not have these needs, and from competing with them and achieving with them. It is also better for able-bodied children to come into contact with youngsters with special needs of one sort or another. The policy is working well at the moment.
Mr. Morris: As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said earlier, the more disabled children can enjoy the society of non-disabled children, and vice versa, the better it will be for them later in their lives. Society is very reluctant to see the visible problems of handicapped people simply because opportunities were missed in the school years.
Mr. Scott: I totally agree. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the point that I, perhaps less eloquently than he, was trying to make. Only 10 days ago I was with a boy of about 13 who suffers from cerebral palsy. His mother had to fight for 18 months to get him into a regular school; the local education authority was determined that he should go to a special school. His mother—a formidable character—dug her heels in, and now he is heading for GCSEs and O-levels. Of course, he will then face other obstacles, on which I shall touch in my speech.
The timetable at the boy's school has to be arranged with him in mind—the school was built in Victorian days, and he cannot cope with the stairs. He has a full-time assistant with him; his computer has to be lugged around the school. I am sure, however, that that happy and well-adjusted young boy has benefited considerably from being in regular school—as have the pupils who have shared lessons with him. They have seen his disability. It is a theme of my job to persuade people to look behind the disability that they see first to the abilities that frequently lie behind it.
Mr. Corbyn: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about primary and secondary education. A constituent of mine went through a series of special schools under the Inner London education authority throughout his school life. In some cases ILEA did well for him, in others, less so. He has now returned home and it is proving impossible to find day care facilities for him. He is severely disturbed, and is now stuck at home with his parents, one of whom is unemployed. They have great difficulty looking after him. They do not want him to go into a long-stay institution but would prefer him to have a degree of independence at home. To do that, they need the support and respite which day-care facilities and day centres can offer. There is an enormous waiting list for such centres, not just in my borough but throughout London. I am sure that the Minister is also aware of that problem. Can he direct greater resources to such day centres for those who are severely disturbed?
Mr. Scott: A range of day-care facilities is provided by local authorities and voluntary organisations. I have visited many of them. I cannot promise extra resources, but I pay a warm tribute to those who operate in this field. We face problems when young people move from primary to secondary education and have to be integrated into the system. We must also smooth their path to higher education and later I shall discuss what can be done to

649
provide them with employment. I would welcome the further development of day-care facilities, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen both types of day centre. However, centres have a great contribution to make to the quality of life of many disabled people.
While on the subject of education, perhaps I could speak about conductive education. As the House knows, many British families make enormous sacrifices so that their children, mainly those with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, can travel to the Peto Institute in Budapest for conductive education. I am anxious to see the benefits of conductive education delivered as soon as possible to children here. I would not want totally to separate work that is carried out here from the work that is carried out in Budapest because that is where the whole idea was conceived and developed. It would be increasingly to the advantage of many British families if they could avail themselves of conductive education here rather than having to go to Budapest, where they would face language and social difficulties.
We continue to value the education provided in Budapest, and we are currently finalising an agreement with the international committee there to contribute some £5 million over the four years for the capital cost of a new building for the international foundation in Budapest. In September 1989 I announced our commitment to that new institute and I also said that we hope to supplement the Government's contribution towards Peto with a similar amount of money raised from non-government sources.
It seems clear that conductive education will be brought to this country, primarily because of the action of the several voluntary organisations that are working in this field in a number of different ways. We plan to have discussions with some of those organisations in the near future. I am optimistic that we can produce a joint approach to fund raising which will ensure an acceleration of funds for the new institute in Budapest and for developments in this country based on links with the Peto institute.
I have in my office a marvellous video starring Bob Hoskins and a young lady called Dawn. It shows how conductive education can benefit young people and I shall ensure that anyone who gets in touch with me receives a copy of that video.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe paid a warm tribute to the all-party group on disabilities. I also pay tribute to that group. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) work immensely hard on that group. They do not always make my life as comfortable as I would like, but I never cease to welcome their attentions and persuasion.
I acknowledge the importance of carers. The plight—that is not too strong a word—of many informal carers will attract increasing attention in the future. As the House knows, we are introducing a carers' premium within income support in recognition of the work of carers and, of course, invalid care allowance also makes an important contribution. I acknowledge the importance of respite care, which enables the disabled person to go away and gives the carers a holiday. Several organisations offer facilities and encourage the provision of respite care.
650
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that severe disablement allowance was taken from disabled people if they could not find employment after training. I think that the House will agree that SDA is a benefit for people who are incapable of work and have not paid the national insurance contributions necessary to get invalidity benefit. If we paid it to people who were capable of work but could not find employment after finishing training, it would cut across the basic principles underlying SDA, which we recently brought closer to invalidity benefit. There are, however, arrangements for former recipients of SDA who complete a training course but who, at the end of it, are incapable of work. If they claim SDA within eight weeks of the end of the training, they will requalify immediately. In essence, they retain their underlying entitlement to SDA. So long as they are incapable of work and claim it within eight weeks of the ending of their training, they can continue with their former entitlement to SDA. I hope that that will be some reassurance—if not total reassurance—to the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred to one of his constituents, Mr. Melvyn Wall. I cannot comment on individual cases. The decisions on all these claims for mobility allowance are made by independent adjudicating authorities on the basis of the medical evidence put before them. The basic criterion is that someone must be unable or virtually unable to work. There are no special provisions for amputees. Another notable case recently raised this issue. Inability or virtual inability to work are not the only criteria. When we introduce disability allowance in 1992, we plan to extend the mobility component to a lower level. The benchmark will be lower and it will be a question of whether people are independently mobile. The precise details are still being worked out. We are broadening the scope of what is now called mobility allowance and will be called the mobility component of the disablement allowance.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Some categories of people who are limbless have great difficulty in moving around. They work hard, and Melvyn Wall is one of those people who do not like to swing the lead when people are investigating their cases. He tries his best, but he is in considerable difficulty. Perhaps that category of limbless people should have a special provision. Common sense shows that they have great difficulty when they are virtually or entirely immobile. If the district council had not moved Melvyn Wall from one address to another to make life easier, a case for continuing mobility allowance might have been established. I do not believe that those factors should be taken into account.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Scott: I was going to ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East to give way to me. I take his point. I am concerned about a number of these cases. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any promises today, but during our consideration of the new disability allowance, we shall look at assessment and adjudication procedures. We shall note his point.
The next 10 years will see tremendous advances in the way in which disability is regarded. Several hon. Members have made the point that whatever Governments, local government or employers do, it is the attitude of society

651
towards people with disabilities that lies at the heart of many of our problems. Integrated education and increasing employment opportunities for disabled people will progressively change attitudes in society and I look forward with optimism to the next 10 years.
Once we have completed our policies in 1992, we shall have a more rational benefits system. The new disability employment credit will help people who are disabled and who may not be able to work to the full extent of an able-bodied person to obtain employment, which will be a big step in the right direction. The disability allowance will expand the coverage of the present mobility and attendance allowances. Overall, the changes we announced last October—most of which we implemented in April—and the new arrangement in 1992 will benefit about 850,000 disabled people. That will be a step towards a more rational and coherent structure of benefits.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, my experience is not that the majority of disability organisations are unappreciative of many of the steps that we have taken. However, many of them are campaigning organisations. I well understand that they want more and that they want it sooner. However, I believe that most people who look carefully at our proposals recognise that we are putting in place the building blocks for an improved structure of benefits, especially as we are shifting the emphasis in the benefit system towards those who have been disabled since birth or early in life and who have not, therefore, had the opportunity to build up contributory benefits, savings and occupational pensions. Those who have become disabled later in life may have been able to build up such funds. Our proposals are a step in the right direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea urged me to look again at the age limit beyond which people cannot qualify for mobility allowance. The latest estimate of the cost of introducing such a change is about £1 billion, which will probably rule it out. One has to assess priorities and make choices. If I were fortunate enough to have £1 billion, I am not sure that my hon. Friend's proposal is the first choice that I should make. However, I understand that there is concern about this. Anyone who qualifies for the benefit before the age of 65 can continue to receive it for life.
Several hon. Members raised points about adjudication procedures. As I said earlier, I have looked at the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report. It is fairly anecdotal rather than definitive, but I have looked at it with great care. I shall take account of its views and those of other organisations as we look at adjudication and assessment procedures for the disability allowance and for the disability employment credit.
Benefits are one aspect of the quality of life for disabled people. The delivery of services at local level is also an important aspect. Most of us who have had any experience in this area will recognise that the delivery of services tends to be uneven across the country. However, social services departments are increasingly considering the needs of disabled people and consulting disabled people about their perception of their needs.
I want to tell the House a slightly light-hearted story. I was at Totnes in Devon where a new system has been established for assessing the needs of disabled people and for consulting them about their needs. The social services department approached one elderly pensioner and asked her to say what single step could most improve the quality
652
of her life. She said that if the social services department could deliver a case of Guinness every Monday morning, that would be the best thing that could happen to her. The judgment of professionals may not be so perceptive as we think.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) made a point about the importance of information for disabled people. It is no use having benefits, services and support for disabled people unless they can find out about them and their availability. The Government have supported the development of a data base for the Disabled Living Foundation and are supporting the EC's Helios programme to provide information about aids and services for disabled people.
Hon. Members have also referred to access. I commend to them a recent Film 90 programme about access to cinemas, and how disgracefully bad our record is. Ironically, a constituent of mine in a wheelchair was refused access to the cinema to see "Born on the Fourth of July", although he had telephoned the night before to warn that he would be coming and had been told that arrangements would be made. A cinema showing "My Left Foot", the film about Christie Brown growing up in Dublin, is also inaccessible to those suffering from disabilities. We must encourage the cinema authorities to make cinemas more accessible. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, in co-operation with—
Mr. Corbyn: I agree that cinemas ought to be accessible to people with disabilities, but will the Minister also turn his attention to access to this House and ask the Leader of the House when he intends to bring forward proposals or to implement arrangements to make this building fully accessible to people with disabilities?
Mr. Scott: There are, of course, problems with historic buildings. We all accept that, as does the National Trust. I am not being in the least light-hearted about this, but when I arrived at the building which houses the Department of Social Security and therefore the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, which had been thoroughly refurbished, I found that no disabled person could get to my office. Something has since been done about that, but we must make those who design, refurbish and update buildings much more aware of the needs of disabled people. I take the point about the Palace of Westminster, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that there are constraints. In any case, I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Loyden: I welcome the Minister's remarks about the progress that has been made on access to information. Will he consider access to information from the local authorities—which should be the dispensers of information—for the blind and the deaf, through the provision of braille and sign language in their committees and council chambers? That would be very simple and would not be costly to the Government or the local authorities.
Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman is fair and if he looks around he will have to admit that increasingly those facilities are being provided. I am delighted at the experiment to provide signing for deaf people to accompany transmissions from the House. These days, one is increasingly likely to find signing facilities at conferences, including those of the major political parties.

653
We need to consider the provision of signing and perhaps the installation of induction loops in theatres, council chambers, and so on. All such moves are warmly to be welcomed because they will enable those who suffer from sensory disabilities to play a full part in our society.
We are making progress on the transport front. I know that the hon. Member for Islington, North feels strongly about that, as do I. We are making substantial progress with London taxis, although the gradual replacement of the vehicles, which will make every taxi accessible to wheelchair users, will take 10 years. About 50 other local authorities have now made the mandatory London system applicable to their areas.
British Rail is making substantial progress with access to trains. Standards for coaches are being looked at on a Europe-wide basis and we expect substantial progress to be made on that, too. I am keen to ensure that house builders design houses—
Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of transport, will he turn his attention to the funding of dial-a-ride systems and the design of underground trains and other transport systems in the capital. As I pointed out, some 200,000 people with disabilities in London are denied any real mobility either because of the inadequacy of the provision on the public transport system or because of the unavailability of dial-a-ride.
Mr. Scott: London Underground is looking carefully at that matter. The most important single factor in the underground's ability to adapt to the needs of disabled people is the presence of escalators. Stations that are only accessible by means of escalators present particular problems. However, I know that London Underground is considering the issue.
I have referred to benefits, services, information and briefly—perhaps too briefly—to access. Over the next 10 years as we see the diminution in the number of l8-year-olds entering the job market, employers will be compelled to seek out the abilities that lie behind the disabilities of the people about whom we are concerned today. The demographic trend will be a very important factor in opening up employment opportunities for disabled people in the next 10 years or so. The determination of disabled people will also be important. They should say, "We are not prepared to be portrayed merely as objects of charity and pity. We have a contribution to make to society and we are jolly well going to make it." Their determination will help to improve the quality of their lives.
I am aware that many disabled people resent the way in which some national charities portray them in order to raise money. So often they are portrayed as objects of pity instead of as people with abilities who, if given half a chance, could make a real contribution to our society. Technology will increasingly make it possible for disabled people to maintain independent living and to gain employment.
The Government want to encourage all that as much as possible. Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will conclude by saying that the services and benefits for disabled people and the changes in society that will benefit them will not suddenly stop and stand still. There will be
654
substantial further progress and the Government will do their best to support that as much as possible. The privilege of being the Minister responsible for disabled people is indeed a real privilege and an inspiration to me. I know that all those who have the privilege of working with disabled people experience the same feelings.
2.11 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his motion. Almost everyone would want to be associated with the thanks that he offered to people who do so much work, usually, voluntarily and usually unpaid, to care for and provide opportunities for the disabled.
I shall refer briefly to the experiences of the Greater London council between 1981 and 1986. We established a commitee that included representatives of disabled Londoners and of organisations that work with the disabled in London. In a small way we began to approach the problems of people with disabilities in a city like London.
It is important that such a committee should include a major voice from the disabled. In that respect I am not sure whether the GLC committee was entirely successful. Many voluntary organisations do excellent work, but for too many of them it is impossible to find a director or member of the managing body who is disabled. I do not intend that to be a criticism of the people serving on such bodies, but voluntary organisations and local authorities must ensure that they give a voice and power to the disabled instead of relying on other people to speak for them.
The last few lines of the motion introduced by the hon. Member for Battersea call on the Government to remove obstacles facing the disabled to allow them to achieve their full potential. That is the crux of the matter. I have never come across a disabled person who asked me for a special benefit or special advantage over people who are not disabled. Disabled people want to remove the blocks that prevent them from achieving their full potential in society.
When we discuss this matter we inevitably consider some cost or some investment. When the Labour party was in opposition in the GLC, we drew up our manifesto. I chaired the transport working party. We looked at what could be done to help people with disabilities to get round London. Obviously, we went straight to London Regional Transport to find out the cost of converting the London transport system. It was horrendous. Even if we had decided to pledge to make London transport accessible to people with disabilities, the time and the large sums of money involved would have meant waiting a decade or two before we could achieve a change.
The underground was created at a time when people with disabilities were expected to disappear into the background. Work would have had to be undertaken on almost every means of access into the tube system. It would have meant a major capital programme running into millions of pounds by the time it was finished and the virtual replacement of all existing rolling stock. There was no money to do it. Even if there had been, the necessary time scale involved would not allow immediate relief to people with disabilities.
We looked at the most obvious compromise, which involved the private and the public sector, and we obtained some relief immediately. We devised two things. First, we

655
added support to something that was already in operation, the dial-a-ride system, which we had helped to build into a London-wide network of a small number of mini-vans that picked people up and took them to their destinations. Secondly, and most important, we involved the private sector and created the GLC taxicard system. The GLC would give a card to every disabled person in London. They would then be able to call a taxi on what were then the three main circuits, pay £1 for their journey, and the GLC would pay the rest.
That system represented a tremendous improvement in disabled people's ability to get round the city. It harnessed the existing private sector network. The taxi drivers' response was magnificent, and I regret that the system has not been built on. It is far more effective than any major programme of capital replacement of works and so on. Following the abolition of the GLC, I had hoped that the Government would give some guidance, perhaps by launching a programme to put every taxi on a radio circuit so that more people could enter the scheme. Perhaps central Government funds could have been provided to help London local authorities, many of which find it impossible to balance their books. Labour and Conservative authorities have either frozen their lists or have waiting times, so people with disabilities might have to wait months before they can get their cards. It would be helpful if the Government would step in.
Mr. Scott: LRT now administers the taxicard system. About 750,000 trips were taken last year, so the system is operating effectively.
Mr. Livingstone: I agree that the system is operating effectively, but demand is still building. Many local authorities are caught in problems. They are introducing restrictions and waiting times before people can get passes. That factor should be borne in mind in debates on the annual public spending carve-up, when we argue about the amount of money that is made available to local authorities. The system should be extended throughout the country. It is a basic right.
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend must be aware of the zoning arrangements that have been brought in for dial-a-ride in London and how unpopular they are with people with disabilities because they prevent them from having real mobility around London. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to examine the zoning arrangements again so that we may revert to the system that existed under the GLC when there was real mobility all over London?
Mr. Livingstone: I thank my hon. Friend. I spend much time thinking how nice it would be to go back to the GLC—no doubt many of my colleagues will agree. I have not the slightest doubt that the present zoning arrangements imposed on dial-a-ride are unpopular. That brings me back to the point that I made earlier. If dial-a-ride was under the control of people with disabilities rather than being part of the London Transport democracy bureaucracy, I doubt whether it would have come up with such a scheme. I and many hon. Members have written to London Transport complaining about that.
I repeat that we are talking about money. The only time in my life that I have experienced the problem of some disability was when, with remarkable stupidity, I broke my leg in San Francisco. It was just after the last general
656
election. The immediate thought is that San Francisco must be the worst possible place to be in a wheelchair. But because of the very hilly nature of that city, people who depend on wheelchairs have lobbied effectively for years as a political movement and they have browbeaten each mayor or administration into doing something about it. The building regulations in San Francisco make it clear that a public building cannot be opened, whether municipal offices or a cinema, without excellent access for people in wheelchairs.
I was in a wheelchair for about two weeks while in San Francisco. One of the few things that I was able to do was to visit the cinema, and I must have gone a dozen times. There was not one occasion when I had a problem getting in. If San Francisco can do it, London can do it.
I also noticed that there were dropped kerbs on every street, and on every corner. That is a city with a political will to do it.
If we want to give effect to the sentiments of the motion, the Government must step in and provide the legislative framework so that people are forced to comply and create a society in which people in wheelchairs and other people with disabilities can exercise their right.
2.22 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I shall curtail my remarks because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has been waiting to make his contribution.
I join in the congratulations that have been extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for tabling this important motion. The first line of the motion mentions promoting opportunities for the disabled. The one fundamental opportunity that we appear to be denying the disabled is the opportunity to be born at all. It is significant that my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and, trying very hard for his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr.Leigh), who are here to participate in the debate, have also played major arid leading roles in the pro-life movement.
I find it hard to reconcile saying that we must spend more on the disabled, that we must take greater care of their needs, that we must recognise them as a special category needing extra help, that there should be no recognisable difference, as far as possible, between their opportunities and the opportunties of their able-bodied fellow humans, and at the same time saying that, before their birth, we create two classes of citizen, the healthy and the able-bodied, who will enjoy protection from the 24th week, and the unhealthy and the disabled who will have no protection at all.
If we create two classes of citizenship before birth, we inevitably create the sort of society and social attitudes that will lead to two classes of citizenship after birth.
Mr. Edward Leigh: For the last four or five years I have taken Order of Malta Volunteers groups of disabled people to Lourdes every summer. It is not the enormous courage of the disabled people that is so apparent but the good that it does for young, often selfish and privileged people actually to look after disabled people. They should not be swept under the

657
carpet. It is important that the disabled people are among us. Therefore, what my hon. Friend has said is very important.
Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I can only repeat what I have said: two classes before birth must inevitably lead to the social attitudes that will lead to two classes after birth.
We live in an age that makes a god of physical perfection and in which the emphasis is not only on being healthy and active—with which I do not quarrel—but on looking and appearing perfect. We live in an age in which a two-year-old child is removed from a playgroup because he has a severe birthmark that is said to disturb and frighten other children and an age in which women who are already beautiful spend fortunes correcting some minor imperfection while the rest of the world starves.
I recall the words of Celeste Hind, a very wonderful woman, who took her child to Canada for surgery because apparently we in this country begrudge major surgery for children suffering from Down's syndrome. The most distressing aspect for her was the attitude of people in this country, including doctors who said, "Oh dear. How did this one get through the net? Didn't you have the test?" If that is our attitude to the disabled when they are very small or young, that will assuredly be our attitude later.
Those of us who were born in the post-war years grew up knowing people who were limbless, and we respected their condition because they sustained those appalling injuries and deformities while preserving the freedom of our nation. When medicine was less well-developed than it is today, most of us remember going to school with children who had to wear leg-irons after contracting poliomyelitis. We accepted them as normal, as part of society, as something everyday. Today, the emphasis is on physical perfection, not letting such people be born, and on insisting that every last finger and toe is in place and that there are no even minor deformities. That insistence is creating two classes of citizens.
At the same time, we are living in an age in which, thanks to the Government, there are better carers' benefits, better facilities for the disabled, and more awareness of the need to provide access for them. But while we pay all that lip service to the disabled, we are creating a social attitude that says, "It would be very much better if we didn't have those people among us at all." That is fundamentally wrong and exceedingly dangerous.
658
The decision of the House last week will lead not to a better deal for the disabled but to a much worse one. They will increasingly become not only a minority but one of which we say, "Oh dear. How did they get through the net?"
2.27 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on the way in which he introduced his motion, and I agree with many of his ideas, but I shall immediately comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). I was appalled by the decision taken by the House last week to allow abortion up to birth in the case of disability. I am still deeply shocked by that decision, and I wonder how it will work out in years to come. It is quite appalling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke of a wide range of disabilities that exist. In my own family, I have relatives who are blind or deaf—and, as a tiny child, I was taught for three years by a speech therapist in West Ham, and I am grateful for that education.
Mr. Tony Banks: Under a Labour council.
Mr. Amess: I do not know the politics of the person who taught me, but I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the importance of speech therapists.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has had some dealings with foot and mouth artists, and it is an experience when one's host uses her feet to eat the meal. I applaud and pay tribute to the work of the organisation concerned.
Five years ago a young man called Andrew Faulkner was struck down by a virus which left him blind. I am delighted to say that he is taking a training course which will lead to his City and Guilds. He is the first British person to benefit from this scheme at a cost of £60,000 over the past seven months. That certainly shows how much the Government are prepared to invest in training such people.
The Basildon disabled sports group is achieving marvellous results. A young man who was in the British paraplegic swimming team, represented us in Seoul in 1988 and won the gold medal for the 50m freestyle. He will represent us in basketball and the national wheelchair competition.
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[11 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 July.

    PROTECTION OF BADGER SETTS BILL
    As amended (in the Standing Committee).
    Order for consideration read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Consideration what day?
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill was in Committee for three sittings. The promoters of the Bill made great efforts to find some agreement with the fox hunting fraternity. The right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who has just objected to the Bill, was not a member of the Committee. He knows very little about the Bill. I want it to be known that—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 July.

    LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Consideration what day?
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

    POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Consideration what day?
    Mr. Corbyn: On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

    RAPE IN MARRIAGE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Consideration what day?
    Mr. Corbyn: On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me anticipate the hon. Gentleman and tell him before he completes his question that it would not be in order.
    Mr. Corbyn: I just want to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you heard an objection and if so, from whom?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman apparently also heard the objection. We certainly heard it.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

    TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

    CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Consideration what day?
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out to the Government that it would not be impossible for them to agree to this Bill as well as negotiating an international agreement across the river?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Objection has been taken.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

    RAOUL WALLENBERG (MEMORIAL) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committee),
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

    GAMING (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Gaming (Amendment) Bill [Lords] and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gale.]
    Committee Friday 6 July.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I may have misled the House when on a point of order I accused the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) of having objected to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill. I understand that it was the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I would not want all the letters of criticism from people who love badgers to go to the wrong person, so—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us move on.

    Farming (Lincolnshire)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood]
    2.34 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you agree that the previous points of order underline the need to end the anonymity of objections to Bills? The right hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) might have been inundated with the wrong pile of letters, but they can now go to the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison).
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): We keep wasting the time of the House by going over the same course regularly on private Members' Bills.
    I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that identifying an hon. Member who shouts, "Object" is no different from the situation that arises when the Question is put to the House and the Chair collects the voices. In those circumstances neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else would expect that those, singular or plural, who shouted aye or no should be identified. Perhaps we can now get on. Mr. Edward Leigh.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman is taking up the valuable time of the hon. Member who has the Adjournment.
    Mr. Banks: I am not, as you well know, because the hon. Gentleman will get his half an hour. I shall not delay the House for more than a few seconds.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking time out of that half hour.
    Mr. Banks: What you just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) cannot apply to the procedure on Private Members' Bills because the one hon. Member who shouted was not on the Committee and he did not say anything about identifying his intention and—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House on other Fridays when the same situation has arisen. He must not seek to make a speech and I hope that he will carefully reflect on what I said.
    2.35 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I want to use the debate to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the state of the farming industry in my constituency.
    Lincolnshire farmers are internationally renowned. They supply about 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom's potatoes and sugar and 10 per cent. of its cooking oil, bacon, poultry and wool. Since the war the Lincolnshire farmers have responded magnificently to the need to ensure that British families have the benefit of a wide variety of safe food at farm-gate prices which are cheaper than elsewhere in the European Community.
    Without doubt the county is one of the most progressive, productive and innovative agricultural areas in the world and it is blessed with some of the world's finest soils. Lincolnshire is rightly famous for the vegetables it
    662
    grows—almost half our domestic vegetable produce comes from the area. The flowers and bulbs of the southern part of the county do much to brighten our homes, but I am proud that north Lincolnshire, which I represent, is the bread basket of England.
    Agriculture is vital to the rural economy of my area, creating more than 100,000 jobs in allied industries connected with fertilisers, fuel, food processing, freezer centres and so on.
    One of the great strengths of farming in the county is the fact that its farms are still largely family concerns. They are run by people who have the care of the countryside in their blood. Over many years they have contributed much to Lincolnshire. The principal problem confronting the farming industry in that region is the extent to which its economy has been hit. That poses real problems for its future. Unless the decline in farm incomes can be arrested, the result may be many family farms going out of business.
    I shall illustrate the problem by discussing a farm that I visited recently as part of my continuing efforts to visit any farmer who wants to see me. J. G. Dring and sons at Legsby near Market Rasen farm 1,200 acres. The farm consists of combinable crops, potatoes, sugar beet and beef cattle. Between 1980 and 1989 expenditure increased by some 62 per cent. for electricity, 98 per cent. for machinery operation costs, 83 per cent. for rates and water charges, 75 per cent. for insurance, 126 per cent. for sprays—but only 2 per cent. for fertilisers—a colossal 148 per cent. for seeds, and a staggering 230 per cent. for medication and veterinary fees. The rise in labour costs has been kept at 70 per cent., but only by reducing staff by a quarter.
    Against that one should note that, although sales during the same period have increased by 54 per cent., end-product price increases have been small—wheat, barley and rape rose between 7 and 8 per cent. There was no increase for potatoes, peas and beans. The 20 per cent. increase in cattle has, in effect, been lost to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, although I give full marks to the Minister for standing up so magnificently for British farmers. I wish that that could be said for everyone in this House. That illustrates graphically the problems confronting farmers, and it gives rise to considerable concern.
    One effect is the loss of full-time jobs in the industry. J. R. Dring now employs only five regular staff on a large farm of 1,200 acres. Nationally, 23,000 full-time jobs were lost in the five years to 1988. The need to cut costs has reduced farm employment to a level where parts of the industry are short of skilled labour. It has also contributed to a much-reduced entry of trainees into the industry.
    An example was given to me by my local branch of the Country Landowners Association. A tenant in north Lincolnshire—a good farmer on strongish land paying reasonable rents—grossed only £3,000 in 1989 and is now on family income supplement. I hope that that gives the lie to the myth of the rich farmer. Many more farmers are likely to be in the same position. A recent Farmers Weekly survey showed average farm incomes of only £11,000.
    In addition, expenditure on farm infrastructure has had to be dramatically reduced, which produces a knock-on effect on everybody. In 1980 the town of Horncastle boasted no fewer than 10 machinery dealers. By the end of this month the figure will be reduced to just two. Additional imposed overheads have been created due to

    663
    Government legislation during the past 10 years, including cost, chemical and spray regulations, and the requirement to record the movement of cattle.
    I would not for one moment say that such measures were unnecessary. The problem for agriculture is that, unlike other industries, it cannot pass on the cost to the consumer. Equally, it is unable to pass on any other costs, such as bank charges and wage increases. Most industries can add value to output to meet rising costs. Agriculture can do so only by diversification. At best, that can be exploited only by those who are already sound and have the necessary resources, which many farmers simply do not have.
    In 1989 a report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food showed that the average increase in profit for those who had entered the farm diversification scheme was only £500. The central problem for farmers in Lincolnshire during the past five years or so has been the stagnation in the price of the goods they produce. For example, a farmer received £122 a tonne for milling wheat five years ago, and the price has remained the same. Over the same period, the loaf of bread that the housewife buys, has risen from 39p to 50p. Five years ago, a pint of milk left the farm for 8.6p and the housewife bought it for 22p. Now that same pint leaves the farm for 9.8p and costs 30p in the shops.
    On behalf of Lincolnshire farmers I warmly welcome MAFF's recent decision on farm prices, which should add £500 million to farmers' returns for a full year. I pay tribute to the fighting stance of our agriculture Ministers in those negotiations and say "Well done" on behalf of all Lincolnshire farmers.
    I also welcome the Government's firm commitment to end disparties between green and market rates of exchange of the pound by the end of 1992. I would like them ended now, but I appreciate that in this, as in all matters, the Government have to convince our so-called partners, who are in fact competitors with many unfair advantages. It is about as easy as persuading a lightweight jockey to add a few pounds to his saddle. But how else can the race be fair?
    The recently agreed green pound devaluation will increase cereal support in the United Kingdom by 10.7 per cent. at the start of the next marketing year. That is something for which Lincolnshire farmers and I have been arguing for some time and they, like me, are pleased that the Government have persuaded our European colleagues to take steps towards ending those undesirable discrepancies. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that the Government will do all they can to ensure that the Community sticks to its commitment to remove monetary compensatory amounts by 1992? I need that assurance today, as do the farmers whom I represent.
    Nevertheless, the industry in my constituency still perceives disadvantages placed on it as against its European competitors. I shall give two examples of that. Corn sold into intervention in the United Kingdom has to beat 14.5 per cent. moisture, whereas corn sold into intervention by our EC counterparts has to be at 15 per cent. moisture. That increases drying costs. Quite rightly, in the United Kingdom there is stringent checking of chicken stocks for salmonella. By the beginning of the month new fewer than 1,200,000 birds had been slaughtered. Naturally, that increases costs, but there is no such testing in our EEC counterparts.
    On the subject of disease, will my hon. Friend comment briefly on the agreement reached recently in Brussels on
    664
    foot and mouth disease, and on how that agreement will assist companies such as Cotswold Pigs in my constituency to export?
    Another problem that the Government should deal with is the monopoly created by the drastic reduction in the numbers of buyers at the farm gate. Not only has that enabled the few remaining buyers to dictate terms, but it has allowed them to inflate their prices to the consumer. That is illustrated by the figures that I gave comparing increased food prices with reductions in farm income over the past 10 years. According to "Euromonitor" no fewer than 15 of the 22 most profitable European food manufacturers are British. Perhaps the balance of trade in this respect has been upset. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission should investigate the activities of five supermarket chains which control a substantial proportion of the retail market. Their power is healthy neither for the farmer nor for the consumer—nor for the rural shops in my constituency and elsewhere which often find it hard to compete. They frequently have to sell their goods at prices much lower than supermarkets can charge for them.
    The last major problem facing agriculture lies in the workings of the European Commission. Much concern has been expressed in the country and the county about the proposed nitrates directive. Were it enacted it would have a catastrophic effect on farming in Lincolnshire. No convincing evidence has been found to show that current nitrate levels are harmful to health, and I urge the Government to remain steadfast in their opposition to this ill-conceived European directive. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance today that under no circumstances will the United Kingdom agree to any proposal that imposes a cost on the farmer out of all proportion to the alleged benefits to the environment? Will he ensure, too, that nonagricultural sources of pollution, about which we hear far less, are tackled?
    On the subject of the environment, no Lincolnshire Member dealing with farming in the county could pass over the need for strong sea defences. Perhaps my hon. Friend will briefly comment on them and on the resources that the Government will allocate for them.
    What the Lincolnshire farmer requires, in the famous cliché, is that elusive level playing field. He is the most cost-effective farmer in Europe; all that he asks is to be allowed to compete with his European counterparts on an equal footing. He realises that it no answer to seek massive subsidies, and as a Member of Parliament representing a largely rural constituency I have never asked for massive subsidies, although I realise that they might have been an easy way out and might have earned me short-term popularity. We in this House know that subsidies only produce distortions and imbalances in the market and act unfairly.
    Government policy, and the common agricultural policy, should be to ensure that farmers produce food at sensible prices for everyone and that food stocks are kept at sensible levels. I have mentioned the need for sensible levels because I am conscious that the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has warned that global cereal stocks are below safe levels and that any adverse weather conditions could affect them. We have seen in recent years how one event in Chernobyl or one small drought in Spain severely damaged the stocks.
    Of course, I appreciate that the massive surpluses of the early 1980s had to be dealt with, and they have been. Now

    665
    our farmers, the most efficient in Europe, should be given an opportunity to earn a decent living in open and fair markets.
    This debate is not only about farmers; it is about improving the environment, and only farmers can do that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment will resist the recent spate of unwanted planning applications by Unigate for large poultry units to be sited across my constituency. The company wants to produce 1 million birds a week. What will that mean for small poultry producers in my constituency in terms of unfair competition? A fundamental part of the Government's agriculture policy must be to ensure that by 2000 we have a viable farming industry and that a family firm such as J.R. Dring and sons is still farming and providing good-quality food for a decent return. That will enable such firms to support a thriving rural economy and will ensure the continuance of the magnificent contribution made by farmers to Lincolnshire life.
    2.49 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on his initiative in bringing forward this debate. I know that he does not hesitate to tell his farmers when he disagrees with them. He does not necessarily reproduce the National Farmers Union brief. When he says that there is a real problem in farming, especially in Lincolnshire, which is one of the better endowed counties in the United Kingdom, we have a duty to listen to him. I undertake to study carefully what he has said.
    I regret that the Opposition have not had an opportunity to study at first hand what my hon. Friend has said, because there is not one Opposition Member in the House and the Opposition Front Bench is not therefore represented in the debate. No doubt my hon. Friend will point that out to his farmers when the Opposition pretend that they are capable of looking after British agriculture.
    I agree that there is a problem about farm income and we should not pretend that things are other than what they are. The farmer's costs are fixed by the market which is free to move, but, by and large, his income is fixed by politicians. That is because of the pricing structure in the European Community and because of the impact of economic policy on the farmer. However, farmers should reflect on what the situation would be if their incomes depended wholly on the market. If farmers were required to produce at world market prices, it would have a severe and immediate impact on agriculture and severe radical restructuring would follow. It would be akin to what we have seen in other industries that have not had a price support mechanism and the limited but certain insurance that the Community has given to farmers.
    We know the reasons for the difficulties, but we had to tackle the problem of surpluses. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that and for defending that policy in his constituency. We had to control dramatically rising expenditure and we have to pursue an anti-inflation
    666
    strategy. Perhaps that matters more to the farmer than to many other people precisely because of the way in which his income is made up.
    We shall do what we can to help. In the livestock sector we have more instruments at our disposal for dealing with sheep and cattle whereas in predominantly arable constituencies we are more limited. My hon. Friend mentioned the green pound. I give him the pledge that he seeks; we will do everything in our power to eliminate the green pound by the end of 1992. He will be interested to know that on Monday the monetary compensatory amount on cereals will fall to 2.5 per cent., which will be the lowest level for five years. The MCA for pigmeat and beef will be zero. We got substantial devaluations at the previous price fixing and what has since happened to the pound has tended to move those further. That is an important contribution to the creation of a level playing field which I recognise as one of the most consistent demands of the British farmer.
    By means of the diversification programme, the Government have also sought to assist by set-aside and schemes such as woodland and conservation schemes. I do not pretend that those provide help other than at the margin, because in general terms they will not make the difference between life and death, but they are an attempt by the Government to make available to farmers the means by which they can diversify a little and explore alternative sources of income. They also enable us to take the edge off some of the immediate pressure applied by the application of the stabilisers and European constraints.
    My hon. Friend spoke about moisture content. The United Kingdom applies 14.5 per cent. while the rest of northern Europe applies 15 per cent. That percentage is a Government choice and was not imposed by Brussels. We have the option to apply the same moisture content as the rest of the northern European Community. Should conditions in 1990 indicate that we should move to the slightly more relaxed 15 per cent. we shall do so. We have not done so in the past two years because we have had relatively dry harvests and such a move has not been required.
    I entirely echo my hon. Friend's comments about salmonella. This is a classic case of the Government taking draconian measures to tackle disease in our flocks, and we are pressing the Commission to produce proposals which will impose a similar requirement on others. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that point to the Agriculture Commissioner at the Agriculture Council, in which we both participated earlier this week. Incidentally, my hon. Friend referred to the notable triumph at the Council meeting with respect to foot and mouth, which is the biggest single animal disease problem. It would be of particular concern in Lincolnshire, where pig production is a major agricultural activity.
    My hon. Friend referred to Cotswold Pigs as one of the country's premier pig production units. We have agreed that the whole Community will move towards the slaughter policy carried out by the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Greece and away from the vaccination policy that the rest of the Community has pursued. That is an example of where British practices will be the norm for European practices. They will give much greater security in terms of disease-free livestock and movement inside the Community. It will give an assurance

    667
    that we can export to the world market, knowing that our home base—which will be the whole Community—is able to give greater guarantees that livestock is free of disease.
    My hon. Friend referred to the limited number of companies that tend to dominate the grocery sector. Competition is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention. There are some positive aspects which I am sure my hon. Friend would acknowledge. Competition between retailers is fierce and it is fair to say that that is probably good for the housewife. More important agriculturally, those retailers are increasingly collaborating with farmers and farm organisations to require a high standard of production, which is bringing farmers closer to the market place. Recently, I visited Bedfordshire Growers—which I realise is not in my hon. Friend's constituency—which has links with some of the major chains. It is producing high-quality produce in response to demand. Perhaps we should discuss whether farmers would find it easier to form co-operatives that would take them more directly into the wholesaling and retailing sector. The law is somewhat dificient in this respect and needs updating—a matter to which we should perhaps devote our attention.
    I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about nitrates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is a prime negotiating partner in discussions on that matter. When I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council in May, I insisted that the Council should set up its own group to advise environmentalists on the purely agricultural implications. I was afraid that the matter would run away from Agriculture Ministers and would be settled by other Environment Ministers who do not have a close relationship similar to that which exists between my right hon. Friends the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    We should have a sensible authority to blend and treat the water. A reading of 50mg per litre taken once in the year should not immediately condemn us to large-scale set-aside or afforestation. That is nonsense in terms of environmental policy. We are co-operating closely with my Government colleagues to ensure that the agricultural point of view is portrayed effectively. We will honour our assurance to pay the closest possible attention to this matter.
    Mr. Leigh: Because I did not have time to mention this point, perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on set-aside. It has a part to play in improving the environment. I understand that recently the Commission agreed an increase to £250 a hectare. Without any cost to the Treasury we might be able to increase the generosity of our
    668
    set-aside procedures. Although my hon. Friend may not be able to comment today, perhaps he will agree to consider the matter.
    Mr. Curry: We are preparing the third round of set-aside. We are anxious to enhance the set-aside programme to give it a greater environmental content. That will have implications for the rates. Perhaps my hon. Friend will take my comments as a hint that I shall consider his points.
    My hon. Friend mentioned flood defences and I realise that they are important in Lincolnshire. The amount allocated to flood defences has increased by more than £29 million between 1989 and 1992 and the main target is the east coast. My right hon. Friend the Minister is especially anxious that he should not be deprived of a job by the submergence of his constituency, although in the early 19th century, submerged constituencies were represented in the House, thus relieving the hon. Members concerned of any constituency burdens. Lincolnshire will receive the maximum grant rate of 75 per cent. for sea and tidal works. I have discussed the matter with the National Rivers Authority and 20 per cent. of the total grant that we give to it will be targeted to Lincolnshire in 1990–1991.
    My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the planning problems in relation to chickens. In my role as a constituency Member, I know that planning is the harshest bed of nails on which an hon. Member can find himself impaled. I shall simply note what my hon. Friend has said and draw it to the attention of my colleagues who may eventually be directly concerned in the matter.
    My hon. Friend has done a great service to his constituents in bringing the situation in Lincolnshire to the attention of the House. We should remember that Lincolnshire is a relatively favoured county. My hon. Friend praised the production of grain, and the county is one of the bread baskets of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend also praised the county's record in agriculture. Bulb production, to mention the most spectacular area, is a major national asset. My hon. Friend also mentioned pigmeat production in which Lincolnshire is at the forefront of technology.
    While praising the county, we must listen carefully to the problems raised. I will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said about the concerns of farmers in the county. He will, no doubt, note that the Government are committed to do their best for agriculture. With such a partnership, I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to represent his constituency outstandingly and that his constituency will continue to make an outstanding contribution to our agriculture.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Port of London Authority
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the legal costs to date incurred by the Port of London Authority in resisting the industrial tribunal case brought by dismissed Tilbury dock workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We do not hold such information. The cost of any legal representation at an industrial tribunal is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has discussed with the Port of London Authority its refusal to recognise or bargain collectively with any trade union in respect of its employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not discussed these matters with the Port of London Authority. The Government believe that the question of trade union recognition is best left to the parties concerned.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to complete his Department's review of services for people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The review of the Employment Department's employment and training services for people with disabilities has now been completed, and we have today published a consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".

  The 1980s saw new approaches to promoting good practice to employers, to developing assessment, counselling, training and rehabilitation for people with disabilities, and to help for people with severe disabilities. In the document we examine how the resources available can be used to full effect in the 1990s, taking account of the major research report "Employment and Handicap" which is also published today and provides a better picture of the position of people with disabilities in the labour market.

  In the document plans are announced:
  — To make more effective the help offered to clients with disabilities in our non-specialist programmes and to improve the management and training of our specialist services;
  — To improve the effectiveness of our assessment and rehabilitation services;
  — To strengthen the promotion of good practice to employers.
  Comments are invited on:
  — What contributions to delivering services the voluntary sector and private sector organisations might make;
  — Proposals to rebalance help to people with severe disabilities, over time, towards placements with employers;
  358
  — The current quota scheme, and other possible forms of legislation;
  — The shape of advisory machinery to my Department.

  I will reach decisions after careful consideration of the responses received during the consultative period, which ends on 31 December.

  National Dock Labour Board
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the National Dock Labour Board.

  Mr. Howard
  The National Dock Labour Board having wound up its affairs, and in conformity with my powers under section 2(5) of the Dock Work Act 1989, the board will be dissolved on 30 June 1990.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if contracts have been completed with the Lakin consortium regarding the transfer of skill centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The sale of the four training businesses to the consortium headed by Mr. Lakin were completed on Friday 11 May 1990.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Parental Choice
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to extend parental choice in the allocation of school places.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As a result of the Education Act 1980, the great majority of parents already get the school they want for their child. The more open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Act will further increase parental choice by securing that schools must admit pupils on demand up to the limit of their physical capacity. These provisions take effect in secondary schools in September this year. No decision has yet been taken on when more open enrolment should be extended to primary schools; the issue is currently under consideration in the Department.

  Teachers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on how many qualified teachers in England and Wales are not currently working within the profession.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The total number of out-of-service teachers was 404,000 on 31 March 1986.

  The table summarises the main information.

  The distribution of qualified "Out of Service" teachers by age, sex, training and last teaching sector on 31 March 1986

  Thousands

  Men

  Women

  Men and women

  Age

  16 to 24

  1

  3

  4

  25 to 29

  8

  27

  34

  359

  Men

  Women

  Men and women

  30 to 34

  18

  68

  85

  35 to 39

  23

  75

  97

  40 to 44

  17

  48

  66

  45 to 59

  32

  85

  117

  Training

  Trained (in United Kingdom)

  72

  264

  337

  Untrained

  26

  41

  67

  Sector of last service

  Nursery and primary

  9

  106

  116

  Secondary—maintained

  49

  108

  157

  —non-maintained

  7

  15

  22

  Further education

  5

  4

  9

  Other (including special schools)

  3

  15

  19

  Not recorded

  6

  15

  21

  Total with previous service

  79

  264

  343

  No previous service

  19

  41

  61

  TOTAL

  99

  305

  404

  The table shows the number and characteristics of qualified school teachers aged under 60 who had previously taught or been trained in England and Wales, but were not in full-time service in the maintained sector there on 31 March 1986. This group includes those who were in service outside the maintained sector, or in part-time service within this sector.

  School Building Grants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the closing dates for submission by(a) local education authorities in respect of county and voluntary aided and controlled schools and (b) grant-maintained schools, of bids for capital allocations for grants for school buildings; and on what dates he expects to make his announcements on these bids.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Local education authorities in England have been asked to submit their capital expenditure plans for county, voluntary controlled and voluntary aided schools to the Department no later than 15 September 1990. My right hon. Friend expects to be able to announce annual capital guidelines and allocations for capital expenditure on education in 1991–92 to local education authorities, by governors of voluntary aided and special agreement schools in December.

  The Department will write to grant-maintained schools inviting bids for capital work in 1991–92 later in the summer, giving a closing date a couple of months later. The intention is to announce allocations around the new year.

  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools, Deptford
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1), pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 627, whether that part of the current value of the Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford attributable to past public investment in the premises for which he has previously decided no repayment to public funds shall be required under section 14 of the Education Act 1944 will be deducted in determining the amount of private sponsorship for the
  360
  proposed Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college represented by those premises or any proposed lease of them for the city technology college;

  (2) what part of the current value of the sites and premises of the Haberdashers' Aske's Schools in Deptford is attributable to past public capital investment in those schools; and what information he has as to the valuation made by the Inner London education authority of that amount.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  ILEA expenditure on capital works for the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham boys' and girls' schools was assessed by them as £5.645 million at 1989–90 prices. The value of the sites of the schools is independent of expenditure on premises; no precise estimate can be made of the proportion of the value of the premises attributed to past building work. The trustees of the Robert Aske's Foundation own the sites and premises of the schools and may transfer a leasehold interest to the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust. The value of the lease, with any other sums, will be deemed to be the trust's share of initial capital expenditure on the city technology college.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Reservoirs
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider the construction of another reservoir in the south-eastern section of Northern Ireland to deal with increasing demand.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: Yes.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Fires
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has undertaken research into the possible relationship between vehicles fitted with fuel injection systems and post-accident fires; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has received from chief constables of police on the incidence of post-accident fires in motor vehicles fitted with fuel injection systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is currently conducting research into rear impacts and the associated fire risk of disruption to the fuel system. The research also covers electrically sourced fires which have previously been identified as one of the major causes of vehicle fires.

  Further research is being considered to establish other causes of vehicle fires, of which fuel injection would be one of many factors to be taken into account.

  Following discussions with my Department, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has already recommended to its members to fit devices to isolate high-pressure fuel injuection pumps in the event of a collision, so as to reduce the fire risk from this source. It is also investigating the causes of under-bonnet fires.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on seeking the total removal of land-based short-range nuclear weapons from Europe at the forthcoming arms negotiations dealing with these weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  Arms control remains an integral part of alliance security policy; NATO has therefore made it clear that it endorses the United States intention to begin negotiations with the Soviet Union on short-range nuclear forces after the conclusion of a treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe, and we fully support NATO's position.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have established any conditions for their support for the deployment of tactical air-to-surface nuclear missiles in the United Kingdom.

  Persons in the Indian sub-continent awaiting a decision on their application for entry clearance to the United Kingdom

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Category

  31 March

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  31 March

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  31 March

  Islamabad

  Wives, children, other dependent relatives1

  4,600

  4,700

  4,700

  4,500

  4,400

  4,100

  4,100

  4,100

  3,800

  Husbands, male fiances

  3,500

  3,800

  3,900

  3,700

  3,600

  3,200

  3,000

  2,500

  1,700

  Female fiancees

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  930

  890

  860

  860

  820

  290

  Visitors, students, others

  2,200

  2,000

  1,800

  1,700

  1,600

  700

  710

  1,100

  2,000

  Karachi

  Wives, children, other dependent relatives1

  150

  140

  150

  140

  160

  110

  80

  70

  110

  Husbands, male fiances

  160

  110

  120

  100

  70

  50

  30

  40

  60

  Female fiancees

  40

  30

  40

  30

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Visitors, students, others

  710

  1,000

  980

  770

  680

  830

  320

  340

  380

  Dhaka

  Wives, children, other dependent relatives1

  7,600

  7,300

  7,000

  6,500

  5,600

  4,800

  4,400

  4,000

  2,900

  Husbands, male fiances

  340

  360

  380

  380

  350

  330

  320

  310

  290

  Female fiancees

  20

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Visitors, students, others

  880

  210

  380

  530

  690

  800

  980

  1,000

  1,100

  New Delhi

  Wives, children, other dependent relatives1

  480

  530

  490

  470

  520

  560

  490

  440

  420

  Husbands, male fiances

  500

  470

  430

  390

  350

  330

  310

  270

  260

  Female fiancees

  250

  210

  200

  180

  170

  180

  180

  150

  130

  Visitors, students, others2

  860

  3,100

  3,000

  2,000

  2,200

  2,500

  3,800

  3,400

  3,100

  Bombay

  Wives, children, other dependent relatives1

  780

  680

  600

  500

  620

  720

  570

  700

  820

  Husbands, male fiances

  600

  540

  500

  390

  390

  400

  370

  420

  320

  Female fiancees

  260

  260

  220

  170

  200

  210

  220

  180

  160

  Visitors, students, others

  1,100

  1,400

  1,500

  1,400

  1,200

  1,400

  1,700

  910

  810

  Calcutta

  Wives, children, other dependent relatives1

  60

  40

  30

  40

  30

  20

  10

  20

  10

  Husbands, male fiances

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Female fiancees

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  —

  Visitors, students, others

  30

  20

  10

  10

  3—

  30

  40

  50

  60

  Madras

  Wives, children, other dependent relatives1

  60

  50

  60

  70

  70

  60

  40

  60

  70

  Husbands, male fiances

  20

  20

  20

  30

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Femal fiancees

  —

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Visitors, students, others

  40

  50

  40

  40

  50

  40

  30

  40

  40

  362
  The Prime Minister
  We have always made clear our support for the continued presence of modern and effective American nuclear forces in Europe. The specific question of deployment of United States tactical air-to-surface missiles in the United Kingdom, and the terms which might apply, has not yet arisen.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number of applicants, in each category, awaiting entry clearance at each British post on the Indian sub-continent at the latest available date and for each quarter since 1 January 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The information requested is given in the table.
  363
  1 Including other persons applying for entry clearance for immediate settlement.

  2 Including persons seeking political asylum.

  3 Five or fewer.

ENVIRONMENT

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the loss to the Exchequer in each year from 1984–85 to 1989–90 arising from the provisions of section 179 and schedule 32 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Annual figures for the estimated net cost to the Exchequer up to March 1988 of capital allowances in enterprise zones in Great Britain (designated under schedule 32) are given in table 13 of "Enterprise Zone Information 1987–1988". Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions have been set for the transfer of housing stock to the Bedfordshire Pilgrims housing association; and, specifically, what percentage has been earmarked for the repayment of debt.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of the letter of consent issued to North Bedfordshire borough council and placing a copy in the Library.

  In line with our general policy on the use of receipts from large-scale voluntary transfers of council housing, the council was directed to set aside for debt redemption the greater of: 75 per cent. of the receipt or an amount equivalent to the outstanding debt on the housing transferred.

  Homelessness
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra funding he will make available to enable Stoke on Trent city council, housing associations and voluntary organisations to meet the housing needs of homeless people within the city.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Housing resources for Stoke city council will be allocated in the usual way following consultation on the 1991–92 housing investment programme. Detailed decisions on the funding of housing associations are for the Housing Corporation, but overall spending by the corporation is scheduled to rise from around £1·1 billion this year to nearly £1·7 billion in 1992–93. Funding under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 for voluntary organisations working with the homeless has increased from £680,000 in 1989–90 to £2 million this year. No applications for funding were received from organisations in the Stoke area in respect of the current year, but it is open to interested bodies to submit applications, by October, for funding in 1991–92.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the presence of cryptosporidium in drinking water supplies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the group of experts chaired by Sir John Badenoch is drawing to a364
  conclusion its report on cryptosporidium in water supplies. When the report is submitted jointly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, it will be published and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide his estimate of the levels of emission of carbon dioxide and of other chemical substances contributing to acid rain from Britain(a) during the last two months and (b) the comparable figure for the same period in 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  Data on emissions of selected gases into the atmosphere are published annually in the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, the latest of which (No. 12) contains figures for 1978–88 and has been placed in the Library of the House. Monthly figures are not available. Emissions of carbon dioxide and of the main contributors to acid rain, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen for 1987–88 are as follows:

  United Kingdom Estimated Emissions

  1987

  1988

  Carbon dioxide1 (million tonnes)

  159

  158

  Sulphur dioxide (thousand tonnes)

  3,863

  3,664

  Nitrogen oxides2 (thousand tonnes)

  2,429

  2,480

  1 Expressed in terms of weight of carbon emitted

  2 Expressed as nitrogen dioxide equivalent

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific contribution was made by his Department to the development of the international convention on the prevention of maritime pollution from oil spillages, developed by the International Maritime Organisation.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The draft convention on international co-operation on oil pollution preparedness and response being developed by the International Maritime Organisation is concerned primarily with mutual assistance and international co-operation between administrations to prepare for, and respond to, oil pollution incidents.

  These are matters which fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My Department is being kept in touch with progress in view of its co-ordinating interest in maritime environment issues.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Crown Estates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to meet the First Crown Estates Commissioner to discuss revenues from the Crown Estates.

  Mr. Major
  I shall be meeting the First Crown Estates Commissioner on 3 July.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received from the general public on his proposals for economic and monetary developments in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Lilley
  A number.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the increase in the standard rate of income tax necessary to raise an extra £21.5 billion per year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  At 1990–91 income levels an increase of about 12 pence would be required, raising the basic rate of income tax from 25 pence to 37 pence. This estimate does not allow for any behavioural effects that might result from such an increase.

HEALTH

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of "Working for Patients" working paper 11, "Framework for Information", and invitations to take part in the consultation on it, were sent to(a) health authorities, (b) family practitioner committees, (c) community health councils, (d) professional organisations, (e) academic departments and research units, (f) voluntary organisations, (g) trade unions, (h) management and computer consultants, (i) suppliers of goods and equipment, (j) other private companies and (k) other organisations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 3,400 copies of working paper 11 were distributed; this included copies to all Members of Parliament for England.

  Working paper 11 was part of a set of consultative documents. The set was sent to:

  Number

  District health authorities

  190

  Special health authorities

  8

  Regional health authorities

  14

  Family practitioner committees

  90

  Community health councils

  0

  Professional organisations

  59

  Academic organisations and research units

  29

  Voluntary organisations

  8

  Trade unions

  7

  Management and computer consultants

  32

  Suppliers of goods and equipment

  32

  Other private companies

  31

  Other organisations

  21

  Additional copies of the consultative documents were available from the health publications unit. Although the unit does not keep a record of the organisations to which it sends copies, approximately 3,800 copies of both the main texts of the consultative documents for information and IT were distributed.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many replies he has received from his 366
  consultation on working paper 11, broken down into (a) health authorities, family practitioner committees and community health councils, (b) management and computer consultants, (c) suppliers of goods and equipment, (d) academic departments and research units, (e) professional organisations and (f) other organisations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 222 written replies were received. Several organisations sent more than one response. Some regions sent a response which reflected the views of their districts. The breakdown of the organisations sending at least one response was:

  Number

  Health authorities, units, FPCs and CHCs

  124

  Management and computer consultants

  3

  Suppliers of goods and services

  11

  Academic departments and research units

  8

  Professional organisations

  20

  Other organisations

  14

  Total

  180

  A list of the organisations responding to the consultative exercise is given in appendix 1 of the document, published this week, entitled "Framework for Information Systems: The Next Steps". Aimed primarily at information systems specialists, the document presents the conclusions of the consultation exercise. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  London Hospitals (Patients)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of patients treated during the last full year before closure of(a) the South London hospital for women, (b) Lambeth hospital and (c) St. George's hospital, Balham; and what is the total number of patients currently being treated at Charing Cross hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is given in the table. St. George's hospital in Tooting is fully operational, but details are given for St. James's which has closed. There were 25,080 in-patient cases treated at Charing Cross hospital in the year ending March 1989, the latest for which information is held centrally.

  Numbers of patients treated in last full year before closure

  Hospital

  Last full year of activity

  In-patients treated

  South London hospital (women)

  1983

  5,353

  Lambeth hospital

  1975

  8,836

  St. James's, Balham

  1986

  12,678

  Transplant Operations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many transplant operations have been carried out in the United Kingdom and how many in the other European Community countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association the number of kidney transplants carried out in 1988 in European Community countries was as follows:
  367

  Number of kidney transplants

  Belgium

  401

  Denmark

  145

  Fed. Rep. Germany

  1,791

  France

  1,808

  Greece

  39

  Ireland

  78

  Italy

  476

  Luxembourg

  6

  Netherlands

  416

  Portugal

  104

  Spain

  1,018

  United Kingdom

  1,735

  Note: Figures include transplants of kidneys from cadavers and living donors.

  We do not have accurate information on transplants of other organs in European Community countries.

  Pregnancy Tests
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnancy tests were carried out at hospitals following referral from a general practitioner in 1989 and at what cost; if he will list his reply by region; and if he will make a statement about pregnancy test charges in the future.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available centrally. Where health authorities offer general practitioners direct access to pathology services it is for the general practitioner concerned to judge whether a hospital test is warranted or whether an alternative method of confirming pregnancy is appropriate. Tests provided under the national health service will continue to be free of charge.

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of breast cancer in women aged(a) 50 to 64 years and (b) 65 years and over in each year since 1984 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table; 1985 is the latest available data year.

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasm of female breast1, and rates per 100,000 population, ages 50–64, 65 and over, England and Wales, 19852.

  Age-Group

  Number

  Rate3

  50–64

  6,977

  166

  65+

  10,538

  228

  1 Assigned to the International Classification of Diseases 9th revision code 174.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Rate per 100,000 population.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of cervical cancer in women aged(a) 50 to 64 years and (b) 65 years and over in each year since 1984 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table; 1985 is the latest available data year.
  368

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri1 and rates per 100,000 population, ages 50–64, 65 and over, England and Wales, 19852

  Age-Group

  Number

  Rate2

  50–64

  1,075

  26

  65+

  1,086

  24

  1 Assisigned to the International Classification of Diseases 9th revision code 180.

  2 Provisional

  3 Rate per 100,000 population.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the routine invitation of women for breast and cervical cancer screening to women over the age of 65 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Women aged over 65 are not excluded from either screening programme. We have asked health authorities to provide breast cancer screening to women in this age group every three years on request. Guidance on cervical screening issued by the Department of Health to health authorities, family practitioner committees and general practitioners stated that"women aged 65 and over who have not had two consecutive negative smears in the last ten years should also be screened".
  Our most recent figures show that women aged over 65 years already consult their doctors more than six times a year on average. Under the GPs' new contract much greater emphasis is being placed on health promotion and prevention of ill health. This will mean that GPs will have even more opportunities to advise women patients over 65 of the wisdom of accepting these preventive measures.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health implications to consumers of tap water from the presence of blue-green algae in water sources.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am advised that, despite medical and scientific interest over at least 50 years, there is no convincing evidence that algal toxins in drinking water have ever caused illness in humans.

  Several published reports from other countries refer to outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness and hepatitis occurring during a period of heavy algal growth in the source of the drinking water. In these incidents, the source water often smelt and tasted unpleasant and the water treatment was inadequate to remove the taste and odour which therefore remained in the drinking water. However, as noted in a review published in 1984 by the World Health Organisation, there is no evidence of the causal involvement of algal toxins in these episodes. There have been no such published reports from the United Kingdom.

  Scanners
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the provision and allocation of capital resources to provide scanners in national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is for health authorities to decide, in the light of local circumstances and needs, how capital moneys are to be allocated.

  Medical Laboratory and Scientific Officers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the duties and responsibilities of medical laboratory and scientific officers in each of the bands of salaries from £7,897 to £20,244.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The duties and responsibilities of each grade are for employing authorities to determine within the guidance agreed by the Whitley council.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of medical laboratory and scientific officers in each band of salaries from £7,897 to £20,244 a year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is shown in the table.

  Qualified medical laboratory and scientific officers on each pay scale1

  England—30 September 1989

  Grade

  Pay scale2 £

  Whole time equivalents2 3

  MLSO 1

  7,897 to 12,158

  4,940

  MLSO 2

  11,241 to 16,639

  2,810

  MLSO 3

  15,383 to 19,465

  1,650

  MLSO 4

  17,996 to 22,771

  540

  Total

  9,940

  Grading unknown4

  1,480

  Grand total

  11,420

  1 The scales quoted are basic rates of pay.

  2 Pay scales include the three additional points by which scales may be advanced to recognise special skills and additional responsibilities. Approximately 23 per cent. of medical laboratory and scientific officers are on advanced scale positions.

  3 All figures rounded to nearest ten whole time equivalents.

  4 Medical laboratory and scientific officers who, at the time figures were collected, had not been assigned to a grade in the new structure, which was introduced in 1988–89.

  Health Visiting, Greenwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions his Department has undertaken following the discussions about health visiting in Greenwich which were held on 26 April between the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and a delegation led by the hon. Member for Woolwich.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A nursing officer from the Department has visited Greenwich health authority and we have received information from a limited comparative study of Greenwich and some other London health districts. Greenwich health authority had set up a working party to consider the health visiting service, and the Department has this week received a copy of its report.

  Residential Care Allowances
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total budgeted figure to be transferred from the residential care allowances budget to local authorities in 1990 by departmental region; and for what purposes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No transfer will be made this year. The amount to be transferred from the Department 370
  of Social Security to local authorities in 1991–92 to enable them to discharge new responsibilities arising from the White Paper "Caring for People" (Cm 849) has not yet finally been determined.

  Cadaver Kidney Transplants
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the total number of cadaver kidney transplants carried out in the latest year for which figures are available at each of the health districts of Riverside, Bloomsbury, Hampstead, City and Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Lewisham and Southwark, Camberwell, West Lambeth and the Hammersmith special health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: According to information provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Service, the number of cadaveric kidney transplants carried out in 1989 in the district health authorities specified was as follows:

  Health Authority

  Number

  Riverside

  25

  Bloomsbury

  23

  Hampstead

  33

  City and Hackney

  48

  Tower Hamlets

  54

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  70

  Camberwell

  32

  West Lambeth

  22

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's special health authority

  35

  We are pleased to announce that the number of cadaveric kidney transplants carried out in the United Kingdom in 1989 was a record. The total of 1,732 transplants represents a 10 per cent. increase on the achievement of the previous year.

  Drug Safety
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Medicines Commission on the Committee on Safety of Medicines carries out independent checking of manufacturers' data on drug safety.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: The Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines are themselves independent advisory bodies set up under the Medicines Act 1968. It is not their practice to commission separate independent checking of manufacturers' data.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the expenditure in real terms on evaluating the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and (b) the number of specialised staff working on drug safety in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: Evaluation of safety is one integral component of the process of licensing medicinal products and monitoring them after marketing. This evaluation is carried out by expert toxicologists, pharmacists and physicians within the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) who are further advised by a number of expert committees. Separate costings are not available in the form requested. The MCA has recently been reorganised into a number of specialised businesses. The pharmacovigilance unit has responsibility for monitoring adverse reactions to drugs and there are currently 27 staff employed on this work.
  371
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what data the Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines rely for their assessment of a drug's safety before recommending a product licence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: Every product licence application is considered individually and must satisfy the licensing authority as to safety, quality and efficacy before a licence can be granted. The EC publication "The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the EC" volumes I-V and the Department of Health's publication, "Guidance Notes on Applications for Product Licences" (Revised MAL 2) provide comprehensive guidance on requirements for safety data. Copies will be placed in the Library shortly.

WALES

  Andrew Jones
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the extra costs of keeping Andrew Jones in Whitchurch hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Arrangements for the care of Mr. Jones are a matter for South Glamorgan health authority. However, I am told that some £33,000 a year has been allocated to the ward on which Mr. Jones is accommodated to improve the overall level of care of patients, including Mr. Jones.

  Civil Servants (Workplaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken at workplaces used by civil servants in his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Each division of the Welsh Office has assessed the risk to the health of staff arising from hazardous substances in the workplace and the action needed to comply with the regulations. Similar information has also been obtained from contractors using buildings occupied by the Department's staff.

  Perinatal and Paediatric Pathologists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the regional health authorities in Wales have appointed a perinatal or paediatric pathologist.

  Mr. Grist
  There is one consultant paediatrician in South Glamorgan health authority who has an interest in pathology.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost to his Department of the recent study undertaken by the university of Manchester on matters relating to the development of the all-Wales strategy for mental illness.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  It was £24,108.45.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all working papers, implementation documents, departmental circulars and other publications, whether in 372
  draft or final form, that have been issued to date by organisations other than his own Department, which have application in Wales in whole or in part arising from the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, "Working for Patients", "Caring for People" and associated Government initiatives.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 28 June 1990.

  DHAs (Capital Assets)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of any income realised by the sale of any capital assets it is currently his policy to allow any district health authority in Wales to use in respect of revenue expenditure(a) in the financial year in which the sale occurs and (b) in any subsequent financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 18 April which set out the virement limits applying to transfers of funds by health authorities between their revenue and capital cash limits. In the event that an authority wishes to exceed its virement limits, it must seek Welsh Office approval and agreement is subject to the authority's excess requirements being contained within the all-Wales virement limits. Receipts from the sale of capital assets form part of an authority's capital allocation and authorities may therefore vire such receipts to revenue in accordance with these arrangements.

  Authorities also have a degree of flexibility to carry forward revenue and capital funds into a subsequent financial year. Each may carry forward 1 per cent. of its final net revenue cash limit and up to 10 per cent. of its final capital cash limit. In planning to carry forward funds, an authority may also seek the help of other authorities by entering into brokerage arrangements. In such cases the authority will lend the funds it wishes to carry forward, on the understanding that the loan will be repaid in the next or a subsequent financial year.

  Singleton Hospital
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the review of the operation of the minor casualty unit at Singleton hospital has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Officials are currently considering additional information recently provided by West Glamorgan health authority and Swansea and Lliw Valley community health council. I will announce the results of the review as soon as all the relevant factors have been examined.

  Algae
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the location of blue-green algae reported on four public supply reservoirs in Wales; what is the scientific description of such algae; and what assessment he has made of its potential effect if ingested by humans.

  Mr. Grist
  The four public supply reservoirs where blue-green algae have been detected are:

  Reservoir

  Type of algae

  Dolwen, Clwyd

  Microcystis

  Plas Uchaf, Clwyd

  Anabaena, Microcystis

  Cefni, Anglesey, Gwynedd

  Anabaena

  Llandegfedd, Gwent

  Aphanizomenon, Anabaena

  373
  Algae have also been found at four locations not used for public supply: Llyn Coron reservoir on Anglesey (anabaena detected), Henson hospital lake in Mid Glamorgan (anabaena, microcystis and aphanizomenon), Talley lake in Dyfed (gleostrichia and microcystis) and Eglwys Nunydd, West Glamorgan (aphanizomenon).

  Blue-green algae (Myxophyta or Cynanophyta) are a large and diverse group of micro-organisms. Their basic structure and genetic organisation are bacterial in nature, but like green plants, they are able to produce carbohydrates by photosynthesis. The coloration is derived from the blue and green pigments used in photosynthesis. Unlike most plants, many blue-green algae do not need nitrogenous nutrients, having the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Some, but by no means all, blue-green algae are toxic; several species which commonly occur in the aquatic environment can produce toxins.

  Toxic algae can result in illnesses, including skin rashes, eye irritation, vomiting, diarrhoea, fever and pains in muscles and joints, in some recreational users of water who swallow or swim through the algal scums. There have been no reports of long-term effects or deaths in humans, but in some cases the illnesses were severe.

  There is no evidence of illness resulting from drinking treated water supplied from the reservoirs affected by blue-green algae. In the four public supply reservoirs listed above where the algae have been detected, the algal scums have been limited to small areas on the water surface and have not adversely affected the water abstracted from deeper in the reservoirs for the purpose of water supply.

  Furthermore, the normal processes of water treatment used are effective in removing algae from abstracted water or any organic compounds associated with the algal blooms.

SCOTLAND

  National Health Service Reform
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals that have expressed an interest in obtaining self-governing status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expressions of interest have been received in respect of hospitals at Forfar, the Royal Scottish national hospital at Larbert, the unit at the Foresterhill site in Aberdeen comprising the royal infirmary, maternity hospital and children's hospital, and the South Ayrshire unit comprising the hospitals at Ayr and Ballochmyle.

  General Practitioner Budgets
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of general practitioner practices eligible for budget holding, the number which have applied, the health boards in which they are situated and the names of each practice.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on 20 June,Official Report, column 622.

  Scottish Constituencies
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current average number of voters in a Scottish constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average number of voters in a constituency in Scotland on publication of the 1990 electoral registers in February was 54,677.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards the construction of a national stadium for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: It is for Scottish sports bodies, rather than the Government, to decide what action is required to provide better sports facilities.

  Nurses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that no newly qualified nurse in Scotland is unable to find a job.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: While most newly qualified nurses find employment on completion of their training, it is impossible to guarantee the employment of all such nurses and students are made aware of this when they enrol. The number of nurses qualifying each year will seldom, if ever, match the number of posts immediately available in the national health service, but it should be noted that the number of qualified nurses employed in the national health service in Scotland has increased by 34.5 per cent. between 1979 and 1989. In addition, there are a growing number of employment opportunities for nurses elsewhere in both the public and private sectors.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed, it is currently estimated that about 3.3 million people would pay more contributions. If the corresponding upper profits limit for self-employed people were also removed, it is estimated that about another 0.5 million people would pay more contributions.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people affected by regulation 25, industrial deafness, ruled ultra vires by the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Scott
  Since October 1974 when occupational deafness was added to the list of prescribed diseases, we
  375
  estimate that about 25,000 claims for disablement benefit have failed to satisfy the requirements of regulation 25 of the Industrial Injuries (Prescribed Diseases) Regulation 1985 or similar preceding provisions. They were not therefore referred for audiometric testing to establish whether they satisfied the necessary level of hearing loss.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's estimate of the cost of implementing the Court of Appeal ruling on October 1989 regarding regulation 25—industrial deafness prescribed diseases.

  Mr. Scott
  As a result of the Court of Appeal judgment of 26 October 1989 in the case of McKiernon, the law on occupational deafness reflects neither this Government's intentions nor those of any previous Government. The original proposals for a scheme for paying disablement benefit for occupational deafness were made by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) in 1973. Claims were first invited in October 1974 and awards were made from February 1975. The provisions included a rule that a claim had to be made within one year of leaving the relevant occupation. The IIAC considered this to be a pre-requisite of a provision for those made occupationally deaf. Subsequently, in 1983, this restriction was eased so that a claim could be made within five years of leaving a relevant occupation. (Regulation 25 of the Industrial Injuries Prescribed Diseases Regulations 1985). The court's judgment means that this regulation and regulations 6(2) (c) and 36 of the same regulations and preceding provisions are considered to be ultra vires because they do not specifically modify section 165(A) of the 1975 Social Security Act which deals with time limits for claiming social security benefits generally. If we did not seek to validate these provisions to correct this technical legal defect and restore the policy intention of successive Governments, past claims decided under these rules would need to be reviewed, and future claims decided on the basis of the Court of Appeal judgment. The benefit costs could exceed £100 million and there would be substantial administrative costs in reviewing past cases.

DEFENCE

  Electronic Cockpit Displays
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out by his Department on the effects of the introduction of high technology electronic cockpit displays on RAF aircrew standards of visual lookout in combat aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  Before any new electronic displays are introduced into RAF combat aircraft, an extensive and rigorous research and development programme is undertaken at the Royal Aerospace Establishment and in British industry. The primary objectives are to present information to the pilot in a clear and unambiguous manner to meet the requirements of the mission, and to reduce pilot workload. Particular emphasis has been placed on developing new cockpit technologies that aid the pilot's lookout.

  Before an aircraft is accepted into RAF service, the cockpit layout and its displays are formally assessed by test aircrew for suitability for the mission, and compatibility with the visual flying task.

  Military Aircraft (Jamming Equipment)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing the operation of radar or radio jamming equipment by military aircraft while operating inside civil airport control zones.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Military aircraft are prohibited from using radio or radar jamming techniques while operating inside civil airport control zones.

  Hydrazine Vapour
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the maximum safe exposure limits to hydrazine vapour for Royal Air Force personnel, expressed in parts per million.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Were the RAF to use hydrazine, which at present it does not, it would follow Health and Safety Executive recommendations; currently the executive recommends that a limit of 0.1 parts per million is used as a guidance for the control of exposure to inhalation of hydrazine vapour.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training in the hazards of hydrazine, the cleaning up of hydrazine spills and the treatment of personnel exposed to hydrazine vapour is given to fire service and rescue personnel (1) at military emergency diversion aerodromes in the United Kingdom and (2) at other military airfields in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  Hydrazine is not used within the RAF and there are no United States aircraft currently based in the United Kingdom in which it is employed. However, instructions for the handling of hydrazine, and responding to accidents in which it is present, are set out in standing Air Force department fire service regulations and in engineering safety instructions issued to all operational RAF airfields. Basic training courses include instruction in hazardous substances, including hydrazine, and regular training is carried out at RAF airfields where NATO aircraft which use hydrazine may visit.

  Galloway Training Area
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training man-days were carried out in the Galloway training area in 1989; and if he will list the dates on which the training area was in use.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1989, personnel from Regular and Territorial Army units conducted 6,828 man-days of training in the Galloway forest area. Military use took place on the following dates:

  27 and 29 January

  25 and 26 February

  21 March to 2 April

  8 April

  20 and 21 May

  23 to 25 June

  7 to 9 July

  3 to 5 August

  11 to 24 September

  9 to 15 October

  20 to 23 October

  4 and 5 November

  Foreign War Medals
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries which have issued foreign war medals to British service men or ex-service men.

  Mr. Neubert
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the Governments in Greece, Norway, Holland and France on the issue of war medals to British service men and ex-service men.

  Mr. Neubert
  It would not be appropriate to make representations to the Governments of Greece, Norway, Holland and France for the issue of war medals to British service men and ex-service men.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to obtain the issue of Soviet war medals to British service men and ex-service men.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During his visit to the Soviet Union earlier this year, my right hon. Friend discussed with the Soviet Defence Minister the possibility of a further issue by the Soviets of the medal struck by them in 1985 to mark the 40th anniversary of the end of the war. As a result of these discussions, the Soviet authorities have agreed to make a further 400 medals available.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral reply to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), 15 May,Official Report, column 733, which other nations are trying to develop nuclear capability; and what verification problems there are outstanding in threshold nuclear weapons states.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on 8 June 1990,Official Report, column 738.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is NATO's policy on seeking full or partial reductions in the number of land-based, short-range nuclear weapons in the forthcoming arms negotiations on those weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Arms control remains an integral part of alliance security policy; NATO has therefore made clear that it endorses the United States intention to begin negotiations with the Soviet Union on short-range nuclear forces after the conclusion of a treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment as to when NATO's existing short-range, land-based nuclear weapons will become unserviceable and obsolete.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On current estimates it is believed that the Lance missile will be unsustainable much beyond the mid-1990s. Our dual capable artillery guns will be modernised with the introduction of the AS90 self-propelled 155 mm howitzer. However, the serviceability of the United States-owned nuclear warheads and shells for use with these systems is a matter for the United States Government.

  Main Battle Tank
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the submissions for the M1 Abrams main battle tank fully satisfy the requirements, as defined in the draft memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and United States Governments, in so far as existing and proposed projectiles for its main armament are concerned;

  (2) what steps have been taken to ensure that the submissions relating to the M1 Abrams main battle tank fully satisfy its requirements for structural armour.

  Mr Alan Clark
  The information sought on armour and main armament ammunition is sufficiently comprehensive fully to satisfy our requirements for a proper evaluation of the M1 Abrams MBT against the staff requirement for Chieftain replacement.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to ensure that the information made available to his Department, in respect of the reliability of the MIAZ Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard 2 main battle tanks, is entirely comparable with that which has been required from Vickers Defence Systems in respect of Challenger 2.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am satisfied that the information being made available to my Department in respect of the reliability of the overseas contenders for Chieftain Replacement will be entirely comparable with that which has been required from Vickers Defence Systems in respect of Challenger 2.

  Defence Equipment Holdings
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's policy towards the annual provision of figures for United Kingdom defence equipment holdings, along the lines of those published in "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts";

  (2) whether his Department will publish the latest figures, pursuant to those published in 1988 in "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts" for United Kingdom defence equipment holdings.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 15 March, at column 328. There are no plans to publish updated figures for other categories covered in "The Facts", beyond the information already provided in the "Annual Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the United States Government have agreed to assign any sea-launched cruise missiles to NATO(a) in peacetime and (b) in time of crisis;

  (2) whether NATO has any plans to integrate United States sea-launched cruise missiles into its targeting plans;

  (3) whether NATO has approved a memorandum of agreement implementing the planning process for the Tomahawk land-attack missile/nuclear in support of the NATO alliance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 22 June at column 723.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the efficacy of the non-proliferation treaty since it came into effect.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The non-proliferation treaty is the world's most widely adhered-to arms control treaty, to which three out of the five declared nuclear weapon states are parties. Since 1968, when the treaty was open to signature, no new country has declared itself a nuclear weapon state, and the treaty has helped to ensure that proliferation has not gained respectability.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on pursuing the extension of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the widest possible adherence to the non-proliferation treaty, and regularly raises the question of accession to the NPT with non-parties at various levels.

  Forces in Europe
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's latest assessment of the balance of total ground forces in the central area of Europe; and how many of the Warsaw pact ground forces are those of the Soviet Union;

  (2) how many NATO ground forces are currently stationed in the central area of Europe apart from those belonging to the United States of America.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Taking the "central area" as that covered by the limits on United States and Soviet stationed manpower, as shown in figure 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", we estimate the current balance of ground forces in the central area to be approximately 1.3:1 in favour of the Warsaw pact. Soviet ground forces in this area are currently some 500,000 strong out of a Warsaw pact total of just over 1 million. NATO forces in the same area, apart from the United States, total some 600,000.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to figure 1, page 8, of "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", what is his Department's assessment of the balance of manpower between NATO and the Warsaw pact in the central area in the aftermath of the limits imposed by the conventional forces in Europe treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been agreed that United States and Soviet stationed forces in the central area should not in future exceed 195,000 each. It is not yet possible to estimate what the implications for force levels may be of equipment reductions which may be required by a CFE treaty or other national plans.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to figure 1, page 8, of "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", how many of the 4 million total armed forces of the Warsaw pact belong to countries other than the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Just a quarter (1,080,000) of the 4 million Warsaw pact armed forces in the Atlantic to the Urals zone belong to non-Soviet Warsaw pact countries.

  Soviet Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what implications the deployment of additional Soviet ballistic missile defences, beyond those permitted under the terms of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, would have for the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such a question covers a whole range of possibilities. However, we remain confident that our Polaris force and its successor, Trident, will provide an effective deterrent for the foreseeable future.

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the statement in paragraph 124, page 14, of "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", relating to Trident, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on reductions in either the number of Trident missiles or the number of Trident warheads within the context of multilateral arms negotiations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The position remains as set out in the paragraph referred to.

  United States Strategic Defences
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the United States commitment to deploy strategic defences when they are ready.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government fully support the United States strategic defence initiative (SDI) research programme, which is permitted under the anti-ballistic missile treaty. As the Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed at Camp David in December 1984, SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. This remains the position.

  Explosion (Deal)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now proposes to make available the conclusions of the inquiry into the explosion at Deal on 22 September 1989; and what is the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on 23 April 1990 (column 76), a summary of the principal findings of the board of inquiry will be made available to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee when my right hon. Friend has completed his deliberations on these.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  C. J. How
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what periods from January 1982 onwards his Department had direct responsibility for the investment business of the company C. J. How, and any related company.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958, which was repealed on 29 April
  381
  1988, the Department was responsible for issuing licences to dealers in securities except where they were members of a recognised association of dealers. The Department did not issue a licence to either C. J. How or C. J. How International.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what periods from January 1982 onwards responsibility for the investment business of the company C. J. How or any related company was vested in(a) the National Association of Security Dealers and Investment Managers, (b) the Securities and Investments Board and (c) the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  C. J. How was a member of NASDIM, which on 9 July 1986 became FIM BRA, from 1982 until his membership was terminated in January 1988. Under the Financial Services Act 1986, the main provisions of which came into force on 29 April 1988, any firm wishing to carry on investment business has to be authorised to do so: the Securities and Investments Board is responsible for investigating and, if appropriate, dealing with cases of unauthorised business.

  Credit (Availability)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to protect people on low incomes from the problems associated with easily available credit.

  Mr. Forth
  Major safeguards are already provided for borrowers by existing legislation under which consumers must be informed about the terms of credit agreements before they enter into them. However, the Government have made known their concern about some marketing practices, which suggest among other things that credit is more readily available than it is. We are keeping the situation under review and hope that these problems will be addressed in the code of practice being prepared by the banks and building societies following the report of the committee on banking services law and practice.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the number of tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals produced in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department receives data from the European Commission on the production within the Community of various of the substances controlled under the Montreal protocol. The two United Kingdom manufacturers of these substances copy the data they supply to the Commission to my Department and the Department of the Environment on a commercially confidential basis.

  My officials have recently received industry data showing that total production of methyl chloroform (1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane) in the main industrialised regions (Western Europe, United States of America, and Japan) for the years 1985–89 was (in '000 tonnes):

  Thousand tonnes

  1985

  588

  1986

  609

  1987

  627

  382

  Thousand tonnes

  1988

  678

  1989

  717

  My Department has no data on the production of HCFCs, or any other ozone-depleting substances.

  Recycling
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on grants and loans available for small businesses to invest in plant and machinery for the compaction of metal cans for recycling.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the enterprise initiative, the Department currently offers a number of schemes which are available to small businesses, including those engaged in recycling. In particular, regional enterprise grants are available in the development areas to help small firms invest and innovate.

  Limited Liability Status
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to review the grounds on which limited liability status can be granted.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Cayzer Family
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the implications for investor protection legislation of a redemption reserve held by British and Commonwealth to provide for payments to the Cayzer family.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: None.

  Companies Act Investigations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which cases Spicer and Oppenheim have supplied inspectors in investigations called for by his Department under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: None.

  Hamilton House Associates
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date, and through which channel, his Department first became aware of problems with the financial services from Hamilton House Associates.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: An allegation was received by the Department in May 1987 about the conduct of one of the directors of Hamilton House Associates Ltd., in the context of a separate business not authorised under the Prevention of Fraud. (Investments) Act 1958. The Department concluded that there were no grounds for action under the Act. FIM BRA was also notified.

ENERGY

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will ensure that the views of the House are taken into account before any decisions are made on the issues raised in the report of the Hinkley Point C public inquiry.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 27 June.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the inspector's report into the Hinkley Point C pressurised water reactor proposal to be completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 14 June 1990 at column 287.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the cost to date incurred by his Department for submitting evidence to the Hinkley Point C public inquiry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The expenses incurred by the official witnesses and their supporting teams of civil servants in attending the inquiry were about £5,300.

  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will call for a report on the proposed mothballing of 1,000 MW of electricity generating capacity by National Power at Pembroke and West Thurrock power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a commercial matter for National Power.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, further to his reply of 22 June,Official Report, column 719, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, he will list all measures taken so far by the Energy Efficiency Office for the promotion of improvements in energy conservation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Since the Energy Efficiency Office was established in 1983, it has offered a substantial range of programmes and initiatives to encourage consumers to improve their energy efficiency.

  Initially, the EEO aimed to develop general awareness of the value of energy efficiency through extensive publicity campaigns, particularly during energy efficiency year (1986), and through several specific programmes, among which were:
  —the energy efficiency survey scheme for grants towards the cost of independent energy survey;
  —the energy efficiency research development and demonstration programmes to help develop and disseminate new energy efficient technology;
  —the monitoring and targeting programme to develop energy management systems for 40 sectors of industry;
  —support for the energy management movement throughout the United Kingdom.

  The EEO's current main programmes are as follows:
  —the best practice programme to give independent and authoritative information and advice backed by thorough technical research;
  384
  —an enhanced regional programme, stimulating the development and application of energy management skills and techniques;
  —a campaign in the public sector with an objective of realising annual energy savings of 15 per cent. within five years;
  —proposals (included in the Social Security Bill) for the home energy efficiency scheme to provide grants for basic insulation measures in low income households; this scheme will replace and augment the existing community insulation programme;
  —the promotion of combined heat and power.

  Among other initiatives, the EEO encourages the development of energy studies in schools, commercially based energy labelling schemes for homes, and standards for energy-consuming appliances. The EEO also publishes an extensive range of technical and non-technical information and guidance.

  Elections
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in descending order information available to him on the percentage of the popular vote received by the main governing party on the latest free elections held in each of the NATO and Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figures are as follows:

  Per cent.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NATO)

  United States (1988)

  President Bush as Republican presidential candidate

  53

  Portugal (1987)

  Social Democrats

  50.15

  Greece (1990)

  New Democracy Party

  46.91

  Federal Republic of Germany (1987)

  CDU/CSU

  44.3

  Canada (1988)

  Progressive Conservative Party

  43

  United Kingdom (1987)

  Conservative Party

  42.3

  Spain (1989)

  Socialist Party

  39.50

  France (1988)

  Socialist Party (National Assembly elections)

  37.5

  Turkey (1987)

  Motherland Party (ANAP)

  36.3

  Netherlands (1989)

  Governing coalition:

  Christian Democratic Alliance

  35.3

  Labour Party

  31.9

  Italy (1987)

  Christian Democrats (largest party in coalition)

  34.3

  Luxembourg (1989)

  Governing coalition:

  Christian Social Party

  32.67

  Socialists

  26.47

  Belgium (1987)

  Governing coalition (with a third smaller party)

  Christian Social Party

  27.5

  Socialist Party

  30.6

  385

  Per cent.

  Norway (1989)

  Conservative Party (minority coalition)

  22.2

  Denmark (1988)

  Conservative People's Party (minority coalition)

  19.3

  Iceland (1987)

  Progressive Party (leading party in coalition)

  18.9

  WARSAW PACT

  Romania

  National Salvation Front

  66

  Poland

  Solidarity (Senate elections)

  65

  Bulgaria

  Bulgarian Socialist Party

  53

  Czechoslovakia

  Czech governing party—Civic Forum

  Slovak governing party—Public Against

  51

  Violence

  33

  German Democratic Republic

  Christian Democratic Union

  41

  Hungary

  Democratic Forum (first round)1

  25

  1 No percentage of the popular vote is available for the second round, in which the Democratic Forum obtained 43 per cent. of the seats allocated in that round.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the holding of a special conference of states party to the chemical weapons convention at the end of the eighth year after the convention's entry into force.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We support the holding of review conferences after a chemical weapons convention has entered into force. Such review meetings of states parties are provided for in the current draft of the convention. We should have no objection to such a meeting taking place at the end of the eighth year. The procedural details for review conferences have yet to be elaborated.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the amendments to the chemical weapons convention draft treaty, proposed in the bilateral chemical weapons agreement by the USSR and United States of America, would have on the existing unreserved commitment of any signatory not to retain any chemical weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As currently drafted, the chemical weapons convention provides for a transition period of 10 years during which all chemical weapon stocks possessed by states parties will be destroyed. The proposals contained in the US-Soviet joint statement also envisage destruction of all chemical weapon stockpiles in this time frame, provided final destruction is agreed at a review conference at the end of the eighth year after the treaty's entry into force.

  Defence Equipment Holdings
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to page 3 of the FCO/NATO publication "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts", whether Her Majesty's Government will provide figures for United Kingdom defence equipment holdings on a regular basis in the future.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer in the House of 8 January. The information that the United Kingdom will provide on a regular basis under a CFE treaty will be made available to Parliament. Additional information may be found in the annual Defence White Paper.

  Mr. Garry Maher
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Spanish authorities to ensure that the public prosecutor on Tenerife holds the criminal investigation proceedings into the death on 24 February 1985 of Mr. Garry Maher without further delay.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This is a tragic case, but it would be inappropriate for us to try to influence Spanish judicial procedures. It is for the Spanish authorities alone to decide when they are ready to hold criminal investigation proceedings.

  Burma
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the status of Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been alleged that Aung San Suu Kyi owes allegiance to a foreign power. In fact, she is a citizen of Burma and has not acquired British citizenship. She is therefore not entitled to the rights and privileges of a British citizen, nor does her marriage to a British citizen of itself confer such rights and privileges on her. She is neither a Commonwealth citizen nor a citizen of a member state of the European Community. As with other aliens in her category under United Kingdom law, she is under a number of disabilities by comparison with British citizens. Most importantly:

  (a) she is not entitled to vote in parliamentary or local elections;

  (b) she has no right of abode in the United Kingdom and, accordingly, requires leave to enter the United Kingdom and is liable to deportation from the United Kingdom;

  (c) she is not eligible for a British passport or for British diplomatic or consular protection overseas;

  (d) she is subject to restrictions in certain fields, for example, employment under the Crown.

  Aung San Suu Kyi may now apply for British citizenship, on account of her marriage, only by naturalisation under section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, which is a matter within the discretion of the Home Secretary. She has no right to British citizenship by virtue of her marriage to Dr. Aris, and cannot therefore be said to be entitled to the rights and privileges of a British citizen in the sense of possessing a right to citizenship.

  Aung San Suu Kyi's marriage to a British citizen does not in itself entitle her to any social security benefits.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances waste products originating from a particular species may be fed back to that species; under what circumstances waste products may be used as feed for species other than that from which the waste originates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Untreated slaughterhouse waste is not fed to animals. Renderers who process animal protein for use in animal feedingstuffs are subject to the requirements of the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989 which requires registration with my Department and microbiological testing. Waste food of animal origin or waste food that has been in contact with material of animal origin must be processed in accordance with the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 (as amended) before it can be fed to animals. The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1989 prohibits feeding to ruminant animals of protein material derived from ruminants.

  Veterinary Product Licensing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to review the system of veterinary product licensing in the United Kingdom.
  388
  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the animal welfare implications of the trade in live exports.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 28 June,Official Report, column 479.

  North-east Drift Net Fishery
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in completion by his scientists of their analysis of the data which have been collected for the review of the north-east drift net fishery.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office on 18 June,Official Report, column 454. Scientists from both the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and my Department have had a great deal of data to collate and analyse on salmon fishing in the areas of England and Scotland covered by this review. The Salmon Act 1986 requires Ministers to report to Parliament as soon as practicable after November of last year. We shall do so.

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

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Act,
Greenwich Hospital Act,
Pakistan Act,
Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act,
Food Safety Act,
Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Act,
Computer Misuse Act,
National Health Service and Community Care Act,
Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Act,
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act.

Child Abuse: Care Facilities
11.7 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to assist local authorities who need additional staff to combat child abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Department of Health through the social services inspectorate monitors the services provided by local authorities and gives advice and assistance as appropriate. It is for local authorities to consider how to use the funds available to them in the light of local circumstances and overall legislative requirements.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that the abuse of children is an appalling disfigurement of our present society? Is she further aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and many local authorities which monitor children at risk have found a 35 per cent. increase in child abuse? Does she recognise that they are finding difficulty in obtaining staff to look after the increased number of children at risk? Can the Government do anything to help?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord that all cases in this category are appalling and tragic. In the department we have read the NSPCC's figures with interest. We note that they are based on12 out of 109 authorities and are collected at a different time of the year from the department's figures. The early returns to the department from about 45 authorities (for the year ending 31st March 1990) do not support the increase of the order suggested by the NSPCC figures. Any increase or indication of increase must, however, be a matter of concern. We continue with our commitment to provide a proper framework to ensure the protection of children from abuse. We shall continue to work closely with the NSPCC in the valuable work it is doing on this and many other matters.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the vast majority of social welfare workers do a first class job? They really do. They have had so much criticism lately. It has been shown in recent cases that, short of actually living in the house and stopping the man coming home drunk and beating a child almost to death, there is nothing a social welfare worker can do. Is it not about time that we put that on the record?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord has put it on the record very well on behalf of us all.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness surely agrees that there are great difficulties with the reported figures. They could be the tip of an iceberg, although our hope is that that is not the case. The problem is that we do not know very much about the scale of this appalling form of behaviour. Is the department financing research, first, into trying to get a clear picture of the extent of child abuse; and, secondly, into factors which might eventually throw more light on the causes of this appalling aberrant behaviour?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are looking closely at the situation and monitoring it in the normal way. As I have explained, we have an annual system of returns. The returns are coming to the department in the usual way. However, I point out to the noble Lord that in response to what appears to be an increasing problem the number of field social workers has increased. My figures indicate that it has increased from 24,300 in 1984 to 27,870 in 1988. The Government are making available additional training grants —£19·4 million in grants to support a £27·7 million programme in 1990–91. Since 1979–80 local authority spending on personal social services has increased by 38 per cent. in real terms. If training is the area requiring attention, it seems that we are moving forward.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Baroness follow up the point made by her noble friend Lady Faithfull about the training together of people —the police, lawyers and social workers —who need to handle together these issues? I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said the other day that social workers are not taking part in these

1813
training programmes. If that is so, is it not deplorable? Will the noble Baroness see to it that it does take place?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords, that is an important point. I shall draw it to the attention of my honourable friend who is responsible in the department for that area.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness indicated that she did not accept the NSPCC figures and preferred those of her own department. Can she give the figures obtained by her department? She did not tell the House what they are.
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord. All the returns have not yet come in and therefore we do not have the final figures. I indicated that the NSPCC figures were based on 12 out of 109 authorities. Our returns are based on 45 out of 109 authorities. I am advised that there can be a great deal of variety in the returns depending on the geographical location from which they come. It is therefore rather difficult to take a meaningful average if the figures are to be averaged out.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the apparent growth of what my noble friend referred to as aberrant behaviour and the publicity given to it has become a matter of acute concern to noble Lords throughout the House and, I believe, to the general public outside. I appreciate the personal concern of the noble Baroness and her right honourable friends. But in view of the continuance of this behaviour and the need to bring in not only the NSPCC but the police, schoolteachers and other groups, including local authorities, is there not a case now for a major inquiry into the causes and the general implications of what has become a matter of national concern?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree that this is a very difficult situation. I think that everyone concerned, whether working in the department, the voluntary sector or in local authorities, takes the matter very seriously. I gather that it is largely a question of the management of the investment of funds rather than their adequacy which is at issue. Nevertheless, as I said in a previous response, in terms of the kind of integrated approach that has been suggested, I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my honourable friend.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say first whether the figures to which she referred apply only to England and Wales or whether they cover the whole of the United Kingdom? In the event that they do not cover Scotland, perhaps someone could write to me on the matter. Secondly, as she indicated that there are geographical variations, can she at this stage give a hint as to the areas which are, shall we say, less well-behaved in this respect?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall deal first with my noble friend's last point. My understanding is that the problem appears to be greater in inner-city
1814
areas. So far as concerns the overall NSPCC figures, I believe that they relate to the 109 authorities in England.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although I go almost all of the way with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mellish about the dedication of social workers, is the Minister aware that there have been a number of cases where children have met their deaths in the most horrendous way and where inquiries in various forms have been set up which have reached the conclusion that the performance of some senior social workers involved in those cases left much to be desired? No action is ever really taken to redress what has taken place, and we cannot bring these children back. Although some people are found wanting in this respect, nothing happens to their careers thereafter.
Having said that, is the Minister also aware that an increasing number of people are of the opinion that the absorption of children's departments in the old local authorities into enormous social services departments has led to a deterioration in the watch which is being kept on children? Will she, therefore, look into the matter? I am convinced that some of these incidents would have been avoided if the children's departments which specialise in the care of children had been left alone to get on with the job.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that social service is an integrated activity, even if it is not integrated with other services to the extent which has been suggested today. We follow the generic social work approach in this matter advocated by the Seebohm Report. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that it is virtually impossible to have total surveillance in these cases.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the proceedings for a moment. I hesitate to do so, but we have spent 10 minutes on one Question. The general idea is that we spend 20 minutes on four Questions. Therefore, your Lordships may think it appropriate to move on to the next Question.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her encouraging words which will be well received by local authorities and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, especially as it is said that children could now suffer from physical sexual abuse —
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the situation could be worse. It seems that the noble Baroness will take—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has concluded his Question. If he has not done so, I think that it would be best if he did.

Channel Tunnel: Safety
11.19 a.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who is responsible for commissioning the necessary advisory work on issues of safety affecting the travelling public and those staffing the transport system for the Channel tunnel.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority is an independent Anglo-French body set up under the Treaty of Canterbury. It gives advice on all aspects of tunnel safety to the intergovernmental commission which supervises tunnel construction and operation on behalf of the two governments. It also has a duty under the treaty to ensure that safety measures and practices comply with all appropriate national and international laws.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as part of the build-up of safety provisions it is necessary to consider the information and communication system in the light of the psychological and human factors involved, and that that work seems so far not to have been done? There is a suspicion that that is because the two operating companies are in dispute as to which will pay for the work. Is it not time that the Government banged some heads together instead of standing back from the situation as was apparent from the Minister's Answer to my Question?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, under the concession agreement with the two governments, Eurotunnel is required to submit all its designs and operating rules for approval by the intergovernmental commission. The safety authority vets all aspects of safety and advises the commission.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister began his remarks by resting on the fact that an independent authority is concerned with the tunnel. The Government and people of this country do not want to be other than deeply involved in safety matters. Does the Minister recall a Statement made by the Government earlier this year to the effect that the Health and Safety Executive had been invited to review safety procedures? How far has that review gone? How far is it intended to go? Will the Minister bear in mind that the people of this country are not just concerned with safety as the tunnel is being built, but they will be deeply interested in what the Government have in mind to ensure that once the tunnel is built, it is safe for travellers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the safety authority is composed of members from this country and France, and includes members of the Health and Safety Executive, so it has a direct input into the safety authority. That is about as far as one need go at the moment.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the results of tests carried out
1816
with the approval of the safety authority have not been published; and that Eurotunnel has declined to make them public? Does the Minister agree that to secure public confidence it is desirable that the public should participate in discussions on safety, and that they can do so only on the basis of the evidence of the tests?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have already indicated to the House that Eurotunnel has to put forward all its designs to the intergovernmental commission. The safety authority published its first annual report last year, which it was not required to do by statute; and it will publish another later this year. Details of its major decisions, on non-segregation in particular, were also published. I do not believe that the safety authority can be accused of trying to hide behind any form of obscurity.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government consider it safe for the public to travel in the cross-Channel trains while sitting in their cars in view of the fact that in this country many hundreds of cars catch fire due to self-ignition, electrical faults, overheating and fuel leaks? That often happens when the vehicle is stationary and after the ignition has been switched off. The car could be on the cross-Channel train and the train could be in the tunnel and under the sea.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at the end of 1989 the intergovernmental commission announced its decision that Eurotunnel could continue to develop its transport system on the practice of non-segregation for cars and coaches, to which my noble friend alluded. Eurotunnel will have to meet a number of stringent safety requirements on, for example, fire detection and extinction, fire-proof barriers, staffing levels and emergency procedures.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend and the Minister's reply, I should like to ask this question. Is he aware that there was no suggestion that the safety authority was withholding information, but that it had passed the information to Eurotunnel which was now refusing to release it to the general public? To revert to my earlier point on the psychological and human aspects of safety design, will the Minister undertake to investigate the situation in order to discover whether work is going on, and, if so, how far it has reached and when it is likely to be completed? It is vital that that work is done in the early stages before the work on the design of trains and escape routes is finished.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall read carefully and take careful note of what the noble Lord has said. I undertake to write to him if I discover anything. I emphasise that the intergovernmental commission is responsible for the design and operating rules; and it is right to say that it is a responsible body which is advised by the safety authority. I believe that it covers all the details on which the noble Lord has expressed concern.

Birmingham Prison: Inspector's Report
11.26 a.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they propose to do in the light of the Chief Inspector of Prisons' report that Birmingham Prison is overcrowded, insanitary and overrun with vermin and that the Prison Service is not "fulfilling its duty to look after prisoners with humanity and to help them lead useful lives".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made public on 22nd June his response to the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in which he indicated the action that he has taken on the recommendations for improving the conditions of the establishment, on staffing and on the regime for prisoners. Those are detailed. Copies have been placed in the Library.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the seriousness of the position, perhaps your Lordships will permit me for one moment to mention some of the findings in the report. A large majority, both convicted and unconvicted, are held three to a cell. In such cells there was insufficient space for each inmate to have a chair, locker and table. The inmates do not have integral sanitation. They slop out. The prison was infested by cockroaches, rats, feral cats and pigeons. Is the Minister aware that, were it not for Crown immunity, the Home office would be prosecuted in regard to those conditions? Having regard to the conditions, can he tell the House why during recent months young unsentenced offenders have been transferred from Brockhill Youth Remand Centre to Birmingham?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept that the conditions to which the report referred were most unsavoury. But the noble Lord will also recall that the report said that a great deal of work had been done and the Chief Inspector of Prisons paid tribute to that work. The report also admitted that a long timescale is unavoidable. Those conditions are of course unacceptable. A great deal of work is being done. A new three-year contract for pest control is being entered into which will be for work to avoid infestation as opposed to dealing with it when it is present.
The noble Lord asked why unsentenced youth offenders had been sent to Birmingham in recent months. The answer is that we had to make maximum use of the prison estate during a period of unease in the prison system.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us a little more about what is being done to meet that admittedly unsatisfactory position in a prison which becomes particularly unpleasant in hot weather?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a programme of improvements is being carried out at Birmingham at a cost of £16 million. A new alarm system and new exercise yard have already been put in. There is a new entry complex building, providing new accommodation for administration and facilities for
1818
prison visits and reception and discharge of inmates which cost about £3·75 million. The water services have been upgraded at a cost of £4 million. A new accommodation block for 172 inmates is due for completion in May 1991 at a cost of £5·9 million. Electrical services are being upgraded. Those works are being carried out.
On top of that work is planned for a new kitchen, the demolition of the old gatehouse, the conversion of the workshop to a new laundry and the refurbishment of G wing. When the new accommodation block has been completed the inmates will be transferred to enable G wing to be refurbished and in the longer term for integral sanitation to be installed in all the remaining wings.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is it not absolutely clear that as long as Crown immunity continues so will degrading conditions at Birmingham and other prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has come to an astonishingly incorrect view. Because there is Crown immunity he is suggesting that the Home Office and the Government will not take steps to prevent these bad situations. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that a great deal is being done within the prison system. It is our intention to make it as good as possible. In that respect a very great deal of money is being spent.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, there is nothing particularly astonishing about the point I made concerning Crown immunity. It has been made consistently in this House. Every time we have attempted to write into a Criminal Justice Bill a provision concerning Crown immunity it has been opposed by the noble Earl's friends.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is not because of the Criminal Justice Bill; it is because the principle is that the Crown is immune. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that Crown immunity does not mean that the Crown does not try to keep up correct standards.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the light of these uncivilised conditions, is it not surprising that the report also says that in the year 1988–89, £0·8 million of the budget was underspent for this prison?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the £0·8 million underspent related entirely to administrative support and had nothing to do with buildings.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, can the Minister say whether that money could have been transferred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, transferring budgets from one to another is not all that easy.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, Crown immunity appears to be part of the cause of the problem within Birmingham Prison. Will the noble Earl make clear to the House that the responsibility rests with the Government and not with the Crown?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is entirely correct.

Tobacco-Growing: EC Support
11.32 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will request the EC to withdraw its financial support for and subsidy to the European tobacco-growing industry.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we have long been critical of the Community's tobacco regime. We have consistently argued that support for this crop should be reduced. In 1988 we secured the introduction of measures to reduce expenditure through the stabiliser mechanism. We shall continue to press for more effective control of expenditure in this sector.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he recall that as recently as last week I was told that the total subsidy given to the tobacco industry in Europe was over £700 million a year in value? Is he aware that many taxpayers in this country much resent their money being used to subsidise an industry which can do so much harm to health and life—all the more so because the exports are now being beamed very much to the third world? Is my noble friend aware that there is not only an economic but also a very strong moral question here on which a great many people feel very strongly?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I think I made clear in my Answer to the earlier Question that the figure was nearer £150 million rather than £700 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, no, in total.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's other points, we are concerned about the detrimental effect on health that results from tobacco consumption. Therefore, we shall continue to press for reductions in all forms of support to remove the incentive to produce surplus tobacco, particularly the higher tar varieties, and to reduce subsidised exports by whatever route.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much of the £700 million that has been mentioned is paid by British taxpayers? Have the British Government no power under the constitution of the EC to decline to pay or to exercise any kind of veto that would modify the scheme?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have with me the figures mentioned by my noble friend. I shall have to write to him on that matter. As regards the second point, the fact remains that as a member of the EC we are only one voice in 12. There is no likelihood of our being able to eliminate all support for this product, which provides a major source of income and employment in the southern member states.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that when a similar Question was asked and answered just over two weeks ago, I invited the noble Earl to request his right honourable friend to press for a complete review in the Community of the tobacco regime to take account of both the health and financial aspects of the regime? Furthermore, I suggested that it might be useful to employ biotechnology as part of the review to discover whether any alternative use could be found for these areas. Does the noble Earl not agree that part of the problem is that there is no alternative but to grow tobacco because of the soil and climate? Can the noble Earl tell the House whether that request has been looked at and with what result? Furthermore, does the noble Earl not agree that precipitate action of the kind mentioned in the Question may result in social payments being made to the growers which in the long term and in the aggregate would give no relief to Community taxpayers? Does he further agree that a more constructive approach is required to what is a serious problem?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I think I explained a fortnight ago that because of the inherent limitations of the terrain, soil and climate in the areas concerned, no suitable and remunerative alternative crops are easily available. The idea of alternative crops is not straightforward. Other crops such as olives and vines are in surplus already. There is often not enough water for timber-producing trees. In any case, they do not yield income for many years. We believe that both a stringent approach to future price-fixing negotiations and long-term reform are needed to bring the regime under more effective control.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in this House, in the other place and among the public generally there are very strong elements that are bitterly opposed to the EC and its membership? Does the noble Earl not agree that it is extraordinary that money we allow to the EC is spent doing the very opposite of what we are doing in this country? Can the noble Earl explain that?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, no, I cannot. We are in a dilemma.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the basic content of the report of the European Court of Auditors on the accounts of the Community for the year 1987? It refers specifically to fraud in this particular area. Will he ensure that at the next meeting of ECOFIN the matter of fraud in the tobacco industry of Europe receives urgent attention? Is the noble Earl further aware that the approximate contribution involved is about 18 to 20 per cent.?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I believe that we covered this point a fortnight ago. As I said then, this Government take fraud extremely seriously. I shall pass on the noble Lord's other point to my right honourable friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend clear up the total expenditure figure? If he looks at the reply that he made a fortnight ago he will find that the figure of £150 million was our contribution out of a total from the Community of £700 million. Does my noble friend agree that that is a massive subsidy which is being given to this industry? Is he aware that the argument that the area concerned can only grow tobacco could be the same argument used by Colombia to justify growing cocaine?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on the matter of figures, my noble friend is correct. I apologise if I misled your Lordships earlier on. The attitude of the United Kingdom is to seek to reduce expenditure on the tobacco regime through re-orientation of production away from the less marketable and high tar varieties.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
11.40 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is an unusual Bill to meet an unusual situation. In seven years' time Hong Kong will revert to the sovereignty of China. It will be the first time in the United Kingdom's history that we will have handed over a territory to a communist power. There are. as your Lordships know only too well, long historical associations and ties of affection which bind this country to Hong Kong. Britain has a clear responsibility towards the territory and its people.
Your Lordships will also be aware of Hong Kong's remarkable economic success story. This community of some 6 million people, nestling as it does in a small corner of the Far East, has a greater density of people than has any other part of the globe. It has become the world's eleventh largest trading entity. It is a remarkable success story and one in which Britain has had, and still has, a considerable stake in terms of investment, trade and jobs. Hong Kong is our largest export market in the Far East after Japan. It is in the United Kingdom's commercial interests, apart from anything else, to ensure that the prosperity of Hong Kong continues. Our task now is to help Hong Kong to weather the difficult period ahead and to ensure a successful transition in 1997. I think that the prospects are good.
In 1984 we established a solid foundation for Hong Kong's long-term future. In the Joint Declaration, which was signed in that year, China undertook to allow Hong Kong to continue to operate as a free market. That is a unique position incorporating the principle of two systems within one country. This remarkable document was an achievement for British diplomacy. It also represented a recognition by China of where its own economic interests lay. We have been co-operating with China over a range of issues to build on that foundation. We have agreed on progress towards direct elections to Hong Kong's Legislative Council and we have introduced a Bill of Rights to entrench the principles of the Joint Declaration.
1822
The Bill before your Lordships addresses an immediate and pressing problem. Hong Kong is currently going through a period of uncertainty and anxiety. As a result of this, the territory is experiencing severe emigration. Emigration from Hong Kong is nothing new. It has always been part of Hong Kong's character. But the figures have risen from an average of 20,000 a year during the first half of this decade to over 40,000 per year last year. This year we fear that the figure will reach 55,000. What is especially worrying is that so many of those who are leaving are Hong Kong's professional, managerial and technical personnel. These people constitute only 5 per cent. of Hong Kong's population, but nearly 25 per cent. of those who have recently emigrated belong to this category.
The underlying problem is one of confidence. Last summer my right honourable and learned friend the Lord President visited the territory and reported to Parliament on the traumatic effect there of the events which had taken place in China. I know that many of your Lordships know Hong Kong well and have been there to see the situation for yourselves.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary set out the Government's analysis of the problem in his Statement on 20th December and this remains the basis for the Bill. First, we are convinced that the current rates of emigration and the reduced confidence which for a variety of reasons at present exists pose a real threat to Hong Kong's stability in the period before 1997. Secondly, most of those who are emigrating are doing so reluctantly because it is the only means of acquiring the assurance of a foreign passport. Thirdly, most of them would remain if an assurance of a foreign passport were available without the need for them to leave Hong Kong.
We considered carefully whether assurances falling short of British citizenship would have sufficed. But it is clear that a scheme which led only to entry clearance would be counter-productive. There would be a real risk that those who sought to benefit from such a scheme would be drawn to the United Kingdom simply in order to meet the residential qualifications for full citizenship.
The discussions which have taken place with the Governor of Hong Kong since December and the representations which have been received from many Hong Kong interests, including British firms that are operating there, have reinforced our conviction that only the assurance of immediate British citizenship would give people who are otherwise likely to emigrate the confidence which they need in order to enable them to remain in Hong Kong.
That is the background to the Bill. Perhaps I may now come to the substance of the Bill itself. I have made available to your Lordships two documents, the Bill and an explanatory note outlining our present views on the way in which the selection scheme will operate which has been placed in the Library.
Clause I of the Bill provides for the registration as British citizens by the Secretary of State of up to 50,000 people who will be recommended to him by

1823
the Governor of Hong Kong under a selection scheme which will be approved by Parliament and for the registration of their spouses and children under 18. Only those who are settled in Hong Kong and who already have some form of British nationality or who have an outstanding application in Hong Kong for British Dependent Territory citizenship will be eligible to apply under the selection scheme.
In considering the scale of the scheme we have had to achieve a difficult balance. The Governor of Hong Kong believes that 50,000 is a figure which is capable of having a real impact both on confidence and on emigration. Even at that rate, it is equivalent only to about half the number of key personnel who might be expected to emigrate from Hong Kong by 1997 at the present rate of emigration. But 50,000 families represents a commitment which I think that this country could honour if—which we do not expect to happen —a significant proportion of them in fact decide to take up the offer and decide to settle here. No doubt the 50,000 families, if they come, would make a valuable contribution to this country as they will, by definition, be a highly qualified group of people.
However, I stress that this is a nationality Bill. It is not an immigration Bill. The purpose of the Bill is not to encourage people from Hong Kong to come to Britain but, oddly enough, to encourage them to stay in Hong Kong. But they will do that only if they have the security of knowing that if things go badly wrong they will in the end have somewhere else to go.
Failure to act now would pose a much greater potential threat to our immigration policy. If Hong Kong were to suffer a collapse of confidence, Britain could be faced with far greater numbers seeking admission. We believe that this Bill, combined with our other policies for Hong Kong, will greatly reduce the possibility of such a collapse before 1997.
The Government gave careful thought to the roles of the Governor and the Secretary of State in the processes which are envisaged under the Bill. The Bill is designed to meet Hong Kong's needs, and it is therefore right that it should give the principal operating role to the Governor. It is he, and he alone, who will have the necessary local knowledge and who will be able to command the necessary administrative machine. Accordingly, it will be for the Governor to operate the selection scheme once Parliament has approved it. It will be up to the Governor to select and to recommend applicants for citizenship.
On the other hand, we considered it right that the power of registering British citizens should be reserved to the Home Secretary. The Bill provides that the Home Secretary shall not register a person whom he has reason to believe is not of good character, and so the final say on whether a person who is recommended by the Governor is acceptable as a British citizen will rest with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
During the Bill's consideration in another place concern was expressed that, as the Governor is not directly accountable to Parliament, Parliament
1824
would not be able to oversee the implementation and the effectiveness of the scheme which Parliament had approved. We appreciated this concern. We therefore agreed to the insertion of a new clause, now Clause 4 of the Bill, which requires the Governor to submit an annual report to the Home Secretary explaining how he has discharged his functions under the Bill. This will provide a means of keeping Parliament informed and Parliament will be able to take account of the Governor's reports in considering any proposal under Schedule 1 to amend the selection scheme at a later date.
The Government have also responded to concern that the Home Secretary's power of direction —which enables him to reserve a proportion of places for allocation closer to 1997 —might be used to change the distribution of places between different sections of the scheme which Parliament had approved in the Order in Council. Another place has amended Clause 1(3) in order to remove any doubts on that score.
I turn now to the selection scheme. It would not have been sensible to write the details of the scheme into the Bill. They have to be kept flexible so that Parliament can, if necessary, be asked to approve changes later on in response to changing circumstances in Hong Kong.
The outline scheme is set out in the explanatory note. It is based on principles which were originally suggested by the Hong Kong Government and it is the product of extensive discussions with them. It also reflects certain adjustments and clarifications which have been made in response to the discussions in another place. The final form of the draft Order in Council will not be settled until both my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Governor of Hong Kong have had an opportunity to take account of the views which have been expressed by your Lordships.
The scheme that we envisage would be divided into four separate sections. The largest would be the general allocation section. This would account for 72 per cent. of the 50,000 places. It would be open to people from a wide range of walks of life who have had a key role in maintaining Hong Kong's prosperity and successful administration. They would come from seven broad areas of work: business and management, accountancy, engineering, information sciences, medicine and science, law and education. The distribution of places to the various occupational groups within those broad areas would take account of the rates at which their members were emigrating in order to focus the assurances where the need is greatest. A residual category would be set aside for other technically or professionally qualified people outside the listed occupational groups who were performing essential functions.
Applicants in the general allocation section would be assessed on a points system. Points will be awarded for seven criteria: age, experience, qualifications, special circumstances, proficiency in English, British links and community service. The special circumstances points would provide a means

1825
of giving extra weight to occupations which may find themselves suffering higher emigration than others in the same group. It will enable qualities which were particularly important for certain groups to be recognised and it will enable exceptional individual merit to be acknowledged.
The Government considered it right to include in the scheme a provision affording a measure of assistance to British companies operating in Hong Kong. Service with a British firm would, therefore, be one of the criteria for which points would be awarded under the heading of British links.
Points systems are used by the Australian and Canadian immigration authorities and the concept is therefore well understood in Hong Kong. Considerable pains have been taken to make the system as fair as possible.
The Bill provides for the appointment of a committee to advise the Governor. He envisages that that steering group would include independent members as well as senior Hong Kong officials. The Independent Commission Against Corruption, which would also be represented on the steering group has been involved in the design of the selection system and it would monitor its operation.
Most points would be awarded on a basis which will be clearly prescribed in the Order in Council. However, the Governor would retain personal discretion in deciding how the 150 points for "special circumstances" should be awarded and, if necessary, in selecting between applicants who may be equally qualified.
Concern has been expressed in some quarters about that discretionary element in the points system. We have, therefore, concluded, in consultation with the Hong Kong Government, that the steering group, in advising the Governor on the exercise of his discretion, should operate as far as possible on the basis of descriptions of the groups from which individual names have been removed. We have also agreed with the Hong Kong Government that information about the basis on which the special circumstances points have been allocated in each occupational group would be made public in the Governor's report to the Home Secretary. As a result, the operation of the points system would be as transparent as possible. We believe that that will increase confidence in its fairness.
The second section of the scheme is for key entrepreneurs. It would make provision for a small number of businessmen whose individual standing, investments and operations are such that their departure could be damaging to confidence and employment in the territory. Not more than 1 per cent. of the places would be reserved for that section.
The disciplined services section would cover the police, prison officers, immigration officers, customs officers, fire and auxiliary air force services, as well as the Independent Commission Against Corruption and uniformed members of the garrison. It would operate on a points system similar to that which I have already described but it would be adjusted to take account of the needs of each service.
1826
The sensitive services section would provide for people who, as a consequence of service to Hong Kong or United Kingdom interests or because of their work or activities in any other capacity, would be especially vulnerable or exposed after 1997.
In order for the scheme to benefit Hong Kong properly, it must select applicants on the basis of their value to Hong Kong's economy and stability. But it would be quite wrong if it were thought that our proposals were designed just to cater for a wealthy and influential élite. The proposed scheme provides places for people from all sorts of different walks of life and different levels of income, each with their own peculiar and specific contribution to make to the life and to the economy of the territory. It will be a scheme to cover, for example, doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, architects, computer programmers, air traffic controllers and police and other officers of various ranks, as well as business-men and senior administrators.
By limiting emigration and by bolstering confidence, it is hoped that this Bill will benefit all the people of Hong Kong—including those who do not secure places under the scheme.
The Government acknowledges that the Bill represents an unprecedented departure from the normal principles of nationality law. It has been necessary, therefore, carefully to circumscribe its scope. It is a particular, a self-contained and a time-limited measure. It is central to the Bill's design that the British Nationality Act 1981 should remain undisturbed and that the 1981 Act should continue to govern the acquisition of British citizenship by all those who fall outside the Bill's scope.
Nevertheless, the Government recognise that there exists a particular anxiety about the position of spouses of British citizens in the special circumstances of Hong Kong. There is of course provision in the immigration rules for British citizens to bring their spouses to live with them in the United Kingdom, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has recently given an additional assurance. He has made it clear that if a British citizen dies while he is resident in Hong Kong, his or her widowed spouse will be allowed to settle here at any time. My right honourable friend made it clear that the assurance would apply provided that the widowed spouse was still resident in Hong Kong, had not remarried and did not have citizenship of a third country. That assurance applies specifically to British citizens in Hong Kong. I believe that it meets the legitimate concern of expatriates that their spouse might become stranded in the territory in the event of their death either before or after 1997.
I have no doubt that much will be said during the debate about Britain's relations with China. There can be no doubt that Hong Kong's long-term future is bound to depend upon the actions and the attitude of the Chinese Government when they assume sovereignty in 1997. It does not follow, however, that Britain should henceforth comply in all matters with the views and wishes of Peking. As my right honourable friend made clear during the Bill's Second Reading in another place, Britain must act between now and 1997 on the judgments which we

1827
as trustees for Hong Kong consider are in the best interests of Hong Kong.
Britain is specifically required under the Joint Declaration to maintain Hong Kong's stability and prosperity in the transitional period and the Chinese have undertaken to co-operate with us over this. We are making every effort to persuade the Chinese Government that the Bill is necessary to the fulfilment of our obligation. We hope that the Chinese will come both to realise this and to accept it. Our belief is that, by granting British citizenship to 50,000 key personnel and their families, we shall in fact give those people the confidence to remain in Hong Kong so that they will continue to contribute their skills and talents to the continued success of Hong Kong.
Britain has both responsibility for and a powerful interest in Hong Kong and its continued well-being. Hong Kong needs this Bill. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
12 noon
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as is its custom, the House expresses appreciation to the noble Earl for the clear manner in which he presented the Bill. It is a Bill that awakens memories of previous discussions in regard to Hong Kong and our duties generally when, with dignity and honourable conduct, we disbanded what was an empire and turned it into a commonwealth. The duty upon the House today and in future stages of the Bill —certainly, the Second Reading will not be opposed from these Benches —is, as the noble Earl pointed out, to ensure that in so far as we are able we preserve the liberties of the citizens of Hong Kong, give them security and persuade the Chinese Government to see that obligations as we understood them are fulfilled.
In tracing the history of our relations with Hong Kong, I am reminded of the way in which Her Majesty's Opposition in this House have behaved. As noble Lords may remember, we were in the forefront when, with support from all over the House, we endeavoured to speak for those who would obviously want British nationality with a right of abode but who were underprivileged or might not be able to speak for themselves as eloquently as can some in Hong Kong.
I well remember the attitude of this House in December 1984 when the Joint Declaration was made by the United Kingdom and China. I recall the warmth with which it was greeted here and in the other place from all sections of Parliament. We felt that the Foreign Secretary had done a good job. We believed that what he had secured and was going to secure was a democratic system in Hong Kong with guaranteed liberties that would be passed on in 1997 to a government which would honour what was then in place.
I spoke about the dismemberment of an empire and the creation of a commonwealth. As the noble Earl so rightly pointed out, this is the first time that we have ever passed into foreign hands territory
1828
which was part of our empire. We have given independence proudly to those members of the empire and now the Commonwealth. When we came to think of those whose sovereignty might be affected by claims, this House, with some difficulty against the Government, managed to secure British nationality for them. We did that in the case of Gibraltar. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place. I well remember the support that we gave on that occasion to his very redoubtable claim for the citizens of Gibraltar. We did the same for the Falklands for the same reason —a possible threat to sovereignty.
I wish to heaven that Parliament were able to give to Hong Kong what we gave to Gibraltar and to the Falkland Islands. But it is not honourable to issue a cheque on the basis that it will never be presented. It is with that difficulty that we are all faced. We cannot promise the right of abode in our crowded island to six million people. We have to take into account the fact that if a right of abode is granted, it is a right upon which action can be taken.
I referred to what we have tried so far to do for the citizens of Hong Kong. Again, the Government were not especially helpful, if I may say so. In January 1986 I rose from these Benches to fight for the rights of ex-servicemen, those who had fought for us and those who were in Hong Kong as citizens. Looking to 1997 I asked, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, that rights of British nationality with the full right of abode should be given to them.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is taking part in this debate. Not one word that I shall say is meant as criticism of him as a Minister. We had the greatest admiration for him and we still do. Having said that, the Minister was acting under instructions and advice. I well remember, when I pleaded that that right could be given under existing legislation and that primary legislation was not needed to give the rights to ex-servicemen, the reply which I received on 20th January and recorded in the Official Report at col. 101:
"To expand a little, it is not possible to make provisions in the order to confer British citizenship on all former servicemen in Hong Kong because it is not permissible under the Hong Kong Act 1985. It would require an amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981. Such amendment could not be made by the order because that cannot make any provision not permitted under the Hong Kong Act, and it would therefore require primary legislation".
When I pleaded that one could act under Section 4 of the Act, I was told at col. 102 of the Official Report:
"As to the registration of all former servicemen under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act, which I believe was one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that would not be possible because Section 4(5) can apply only to persons who have been in Crown service under the Government of a dependent territory".
Miracles happen in Whitehall. By some extraordinary circumstance, because of the pressure that was exerted in this House and in another place, only a few months later and without any primary legislation or any difficulty under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act, the Secretary of State announced:
"We have also agreed to meet the concern for ex-servicemen. There are about 270, and of those, 60 or so are eligible to apply

1829
for registration as British citizens under section 4(5) of the British Nations lily Act 1981". [Official Report, Commons, 13/5/86: col. 656.]
I illustrate these points only to show, first, that pressure from your Lordships' House has its effect and, secondly, that Her Majesty's Opposition in this place have nothing to be ashamed of but certain matters of which they can be proud in their fight for those in Hong Kong not able easily to speak for themselves. We did the same for the war widows: that issue too has been conceded by the Government.
What are we to do in regard to the problem of confidence in Hong Kong? I talked about the December 1984 Joint Declaration and the hopes that we then had. The hopes were that we would so build up democratic institutions in Hong Kong with a predominant percentage of elected representatives that, whoever the government were in 1997, if China managed to observe its obligations as we were entitled to think it would, there would be liberties and freedoms, written in and established. That has not happened.
I wish to address the subject of security of the citizens of Hong Kong, and the persuasion for them to stay there on the basis that we have still some years left. One of the Foreign Office ministers is either about to go or has already left for Hong Kong. I cannot believe that the persuasion of this country, of its allies if necessary, and the persuasion too of prominent businessmen in Hong Kong whom China wishes to stay in Hong Kong, cannot be exercised in order to show that the greatest security of all is not an ability to leave and go elsewhere but a commitment to stay in a territory which is free.
Is not what happened in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 a chapter in the history of fights for freedom against tyranny that your Lordships will never forget and a reason for us not merely to say, "Let us try and a think of a half-hearted, muddled, arbitrary way of dealing with the situation"? Is it not our duty to press to ensure that freedom, liberty and democracy are in as strong a state as possible by 1997 to give confidence?
I turn to the legislation before us. The other place has spoken. There will be no question of the Second Reading, the principle of the Bill, or the expedition of its progress, being opposed. What are we faced with? Is it thought that we are giving assistance in obtaining confidence in Hong Kong with its population of six million when, by a points system, 50,000 heads of families will be allowed British citizenship? Will your Lordships pause for a moment? I am told that it is likely that 250,000 applications will be made. What of the confidence of the 200,000 who will be refused? What of their feelings of fairness, arbitrariness and insecurity?
The scheme itself is so odd. With reference to English proficiency, presumably one obtains full marks for that if one manages to produce an examination certificate. But what about the difference between examiners A and B and examiner C when it comes to a person who says, "I learnt this from my mother. She was most proficient in English. I have taken no examinations". One immediately
1830
wonders whether examiner A will give the same marks as examiners B and C in regard to such a person.
On the question of age, your Lordships may feel some embarrassment, as I do, on finding that if one exceeds the age of 40 one goes down a sliding scale of points. One reaches one's maximum points between the ages of 30 and 40. That is all right until one reaches the next category which is that of experience. If one has had an awful lot of experience because one is 50 or 60, one's points increase. It is therefore very much a question of swings and roundabouts going round rather giddily, one would have thought.
What about at the end of the day'? Only 50,000 people are authorised citizenship. What happens to all those —I imagine that there must be many —who have exactly the same number of points but the figure rises to over 50,000? Are names put in a hat for British nationality? Is the Governor left to decide? On what grounds does he decide?
If that is thought to be eccentric, carping criticism of a points system, perhaps I may refer your Lordships to an article in today's Times, headed "Some home truths about Hong Kong". The author is a former director of home affairs in the Hong Kong Government. I beg noble Lords not to take my language for granted. This is what he says:
"The scheme is impossible to administer fairly and will have divisive and embittering consequences, particularly within the Hong Kong civil service which is already deeply demoralised by anxiety about the future and internal dissension over pay and conditions of service".
The article adds:
"The scheme comes too late and offers too little to have the anchoring and confidence-restoring effects claimed for it by the Government. The Lords have been placed in the invidious position of having to improve what may be only the first of a series of Pyrrhic victories for the … Government that have been precipitated by the Hong Kong crisis".
In my closing remarks I should say something in answer to the question: what would you do? I say this perfectly frankly. I have said that we on these Benches wish to do our utmost to assist in what ought to be a joint task of securing confidence in Hong Kong. We wish to do so by obtaining that confidence through the proper democratisation of Hong Kong and its institutions between now and 1997. We would use all the pressure we could to achieve agreement from the Chinese Government. We also wish to see that our immigration rules are such that immigration rights would be granted to all those who need them. When my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, in 1986 in extraordinary circumstances, moved a Motion to amend the Hong Kong order in order that ethnic minorities who would otherwise be stateless might have a position of safety in 1997, the Government accepted the obligation.
It is by those methods that we would hope to instil confidence in this old Crown colony for which, as the noble Earl rightly says, we have a deep responsibility. It is with sorrow and not in anger that I say on behalf of these Benches that the points scheme hardly fulfils that duty.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not propose to follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in any detail. This is one of the few occasions in which I find myself in profound disagreement with almost everything that he said. Noble Lords, can make a number of criticisms of the Bill, and we shall do so. A great deal should be discussed in Committee, particularly as regards the points system. Undoubtedly it is complicated both to devise and administer and it may be possible to improve it. However, we would delude ourselves if we supposed that by entrenching democracy in Hong Kong, desirable though that may be, we could give any guarantee whatever to the people of Hong Kong that that democracy would continue after 1997. Not only would we be deluding ourselves but if we told that to the people of Hong Kong we would be guilty of deluding them too. To propose that as the alternative policy to that which the Government have put forward is deeply and profoundly disappointing.
In speaking to the Bill I confess that I have been influenced by conversations that I have had with representatives from Hong Kong. The message that I received from those people was that they wanted the Bill to be passed, whatever its defects. They want it to pass quickly and they believe that it will increase confidence or, to use the jargon term, it will help to anchor people on Hong Kong. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
In accordance with what I have previously said on the subject from these Benches, I repeat that we regard the Bill as being inadequate. There are a number of issues that we shall raise in Committee. There is a sense in which the Bill is essentially self-contradictory. It is based on a series of propositions: namely that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom, China and the people of Hong Kong that the haemorrhage of emigration should be staunched; that the flow of emigration, now running at between 50,000 and 60,000 per year of the most highly-qualified and talented members of the population who are at the heart of the Hong Kong miracle, must be central to any policy that one devises towards Hong Kong; and that, above all, emigration is influenced by two factors —by the policy of the Chinese Government and by the existence or non-existence of an insurance policy. In others words, if people in Hong Kong who wish to stay there have the ability to leave, they are likely to stay in Hong Kong. That is the slightly paradoxical syllogism on which then Bill is based. But if those people are not provided with the ability to leave they will leave, and they are leaving, and they will be precisely the people whom we want most to stay.
Therefore, there are two types of insurance policy: first, that provided by the British Government which by allowing people to leave allows them to stay; secondly that which those not protected by the British Government will provide for themselves —that is by leaving. It is not difficult to identify which of those two policies is the better. The first anchors those people whom we want to anchor in Hong Kong; the second encourages those whom we want to stay in Hong Kong to leave. The
1832
first is a magnet and the second is a scarecrow, except that it frightens away the birds that we want to keep.
When I examined the Bill it appeared that in the quantities that were devised and decided upon a great deal was a matter of domestic and internal politics rather than Anglo-Hong Kong politics. If the proposition on which the Bill is based is that, given the ability to leave people will stay, then the greater the number who have the right to leave, the greater the number who will stay. It is that contradiction which appears to lie at the heart of the Bill. Thus the policy that we on these Benches have always proposed merely takes seriously the assumption on which government policy is based. The Government's justification for offering British citizenship to 50,000 families in Hong Kong applies to all those British citizens in Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will say that that is a dishonourable pledge to make because we cannot cash the cheque. In fact, we have made precisely such a pledge to 250 million people in the European Community. No one says that that is a dishonourable pledge to make. Therefore, I do not regard that as being a serious objection to my suggestion.
There is a second factor which we must not forget. In it there is a happy conjunction in which our self-interest coincides with our moral obligation. We should not underestimate our bargaining position with China; nor should we forget the immense and vital economic contribution which Hong Kong makes to China's economy. It is in the interests of China that that contribution should continue and grow. Therefore, were the Chinese rational —and there is no reason to believe that they are wholly irrational —there would be a coincidence of interests between us and Hong Kong and them. We want to abate Hong Kong emigration and so should the Chinese. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that that can happen only if human rights, a reasonable degree of freedom and democracy and a free market are retained.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves what pressure we can bring to bear on the Chinese Government as regards this complex and important issue. I suggest that the pressure that we can bring to bear is emigration. If it continues at the present rate and qualitatively in the same fashion, the Hong Kong which the Chinese Government will inherit will not be as valuable as the Hong Kong of today or that which it could be. I argue that, even if one does not accept all the proposals that I have made, a wider insurance policy is what we should pursue. Secondly, a wider insurance policy —especially if we had announced it earlier —would have allowed us to take a second step which we have not yet done successfully; that is, to appeal to our partners on the Continent, in the United States and in the Commonwealth to join us in providing an insurance policy for the same reasons to the citizens of Hong Kong.
It is late but I do not believe that it is too late to try to mobilise world opinion and assistance in guaranteeing to take in the citizens of Hong Kong and providing the insurance which is so essential to the future of those people.
12.30 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I have two reasons for speaking in this debate. First, it seems to me that there is a very strong moral dimension in this debate and that therefore your Lordships' House might look for some contribution from these Benches It deals with a people who have always looked to us in Britain for protection and who have legitimate expectations of us.
It deals also with what I believe is now the one and only area in the complex story of Hong Kong at present where we, as a nation, can make decisions on our own without having to bow to anyone else. Therefore, what we say reveals a great deal about how we regard the rights and dignity of a people for whom we still carry direct responsibility.
My second reason for speaking is that in March I had the privilege of leading a delegation from the British Council of Churches to Hong Kong where we spent a week at the invitation of the Hong Kong Council of Churches. That enabled us to meet a very large number of people at all levels of society from the governor at one end to the people who work in the factories at the other. We were able to explore with them in some depth their hopes and fears about the future. What was very noticeable was that the topic which always came to the top of the agenda after the Vietnamese refugees was the right of abode.
Although there were very heartening signs of some groups in the churches and business community who were preparing to stay in Hong Kong no matter what, nevertheless, we had very concrete evidence of a strong atmosphere of foreboding. In some of the churches we saw what those global emigration figures mean in practice. For example, some churches in the last year or so had lost about 30 per cent. of their membership through emigration. All the people to whom we spoke were aware of the pressure to seize whatever invitations to emigrate were offered to them while those doors remain open. In particular, teachers have recently been under very heavy pressure as a result of advertisements to go to Australia where jobs are offered to them. For the first time in its history the medical school has not filled all its places. There is a simple reason for that: it is a seven year course.
Curiously, the universities are planning a 50 per cent. expansion but nobody is clear from where the extra teachers are to come. In our contacts with the universities, it was obvious that the people who are viewing the future with the most confidence are those who already have foreign passports in their pockets.
Some of the newer churches in Hong Kong have been particularly badly hit; for example, in one congregation of 1,000 in one of the renewal churches before 4th June 1989, 5 per cent. of the congregation held foreign passports and 50 per cent. were applying for them. After June 1989, 80 per cent. of that congregation were applying for foreign passports.
That leads to tragic events in some communities. Some people slip away without even saying goodbye because there is a deep sense of guilt at leaving a place mixed with a deep desire to protect their own
1834
children's future. A major counselling task needs to be done and is being done in some of the churches.
The Hong Kong Christian Institute, which is an offshoot of the Council of Churches. has said that one can predict that by 1992 or 1993 a tenth of Hong Kong's population, a fifth of Hong Kong's Christians and as many as a quarter of Hong Kong's clergy and church workers will be gone. Many of the churches are, thank God, continuing to plan for a long-term future there, and in view of the heavy dependence of a colony's social and welfare services on church sponsorship, the presence of those people is vital for the future health of the community. It is essential that their confidence should not be undermined. That is why it is so disturbing to find that very large exodus from the churches.
It must also be said that we did not find very much trust in British intentions. It was sad to find the word "betrayal" used again and again. People felt let down in all sorts of ways, but the denial of the right of abode to all but a few was seen as the sharpest point of criticism. That is why we became quite clear as a delegation that that issue cannot be dealt with by the, "Wait and see until 1997" method. For that reason, I agree very strongly with the criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, because the crying need is to restore confidence now. Even if you rely on the build-up of democratic institutions, that will take time and will be fairly uncertain. All that must be done against a background of existing distrust towards Britain. Therefore, promises about what some future British Government or even what some future legislative assembly in Hong Kong may do in 1997 cuts no ice at all. What must be done, must be done now.
We went there as a delegation believing that the honourable course for Britain would be to restore the right of abode to all those with British passports. Some of our experience confirmed that. It soon became obvious to us that fears of a mass exodus to Britain are groundless. Most people are not interested in coming here and do not particularly like Britain. They are in Hong Kong because they like it and if they had to leave they would rather go to Australia, Canada or the United States where the society is more like that to which they are accustomed. For them British society seems appallingly restrictive. However, they now want some guarantee from us that their lives and freedom are precious to us, and that they will not, as a people, be abandoned after 1997. The right of abode would constitute that kind of guarantee.
This Bill goes a small way towards providing such a guarantee for some of them. I support it on the grounds that it probably represents the most that is politically possible, but that in itself seems a sad indictment of our attitude as a nation and our fears of accepting responsibility for those vigorous and likeable people for whom we are still morally responsible.
The Hong Kong people will accept the quota system and make the most of it because they are pragmatic and realise that it is better than nothing. It can be argued —and some of our delegation did

1835
argue, as did the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter—that the difficulties in interpreting the Bill fairly will sap confidence. It has been argued that isolating a specific group of people will force special Chinese attention upon them, which may be unwelcome. One could say that a more generous right of abode will make it more difficult for China to exercise discrimination against any group which had been picked out and given that right of abode. There is therefore merit in the argument that that would massively reduce the total emigration figures now and probably ensure a smaller exodus in 1997.
Others of us accepted the Government's intention to do the best that they can while lamenting the kind of racist fears which have forced them into this corner. That is what underlies the unwillingness to be generous. My support for the Bill therefore has this large note of regret attached to it.
In concluding, I welcome the guarantee that has been given to the Chinese spouses of British citizens. I met a number of those people in Hong Kong and it was a matter of deep worry to them. I therefore welcome that guarantee. I hope also that the needs of the small group of Chinese who claim British descent can be sympathetically considered. Their cases are not straightforward, and consideration of them belongs more properly to the Committee stage of the Bill, which I fear I shall not be able to attend. I mention it now as part of a general plea that the provisions of the Bill are interpreted generously rather than grudgingly. It is all part of what we owe to a colony which still has moral claims upon us and which it would be shameful to ignore.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in his opening remarks, Hong Kong and its future present Britain with a unique situation. We have the responsibility up to 1997 for ensuring that Hong Kong continues to thrive, to flourish as one of the world's most dynamic commercial and financial centres during the transition from British to Chinese sovereignty. It is of special importance at this sensitive period in the history of both China and Hong Kong that the British Government and British businessmen show themselves committed to the territory's long-term wellbeing and ready to demonstrate their support for its people in concrete terms.
The case for special treatment for Hong Kong can be made out in terms of political considerations as well as moral obligations. The political considerations were covered by my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the most Reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, addressed the moral dimension. But there is also a case to be argued on the basis of self-interest which must not be overlooked. With a population of less than 6 million, Hong Kong provides Britain with an important source of overseas earnings. Last year our exports in invisibles earned us £2·3 billion from Hong Kong. The territory is second only to Japan among Britain's Asian markets. Worldwide, outside the European Community and North America, Hong Kong is Britain's third largest market.
1836
There are more than 400 British companies in Hong Kong; in addition there are many companies which are not wholly owned from Britain, but in which there is significant British investment or management. In all, there is British involvement through direct control, investment or management in close to 1,000 companies in Hong Kong. Additionally, 2,500 British companies have agents there.
The obvious questions are: why have we managed to develop such substantial business relationships with Hong Kong; and will these valuable ties survive the change of sovereignty?
The crucial ingredient in the successful performance of British firms in Hong Kong has been the commitment of this vibrant territory to the principle of free trade and its opposition to government interference with the economy. Thus, the British exporter has been secure in the knowledge that no matter how turbulent and xenophobic the political scene in Asia, Hong Kong would provide him a safe base in which to develop business. Unlike almost every other part of the Asian region, the British businessman has been able to go to Hong Kong confident that his products and services would be judged on their own merits. Their competitiveness in terms of price and quality are the only entry requirements.
Thanks to the Joint Declaration and the proposed Basic Law, British firms have specific guarantees that the business environment which they will face in Hong Kong far into the next century will be a hospitable one. We should recognise with some gratitude that, despite differences with Peking over the last year, the Chinese Government have shown themselves firmly resolved that this open economy will remain in operation regardless of the change in sovereignty, with no change in its totally free currency markets; its freedom from import controls; its low taxes; and its aversion to budget deficits.
Nevertheless, despite this commitment to open competition, British businessmen have a special, though indirect, advantage as a result of the century and a half of British responsibility for the administration of the territory. The legal system is very much a British product. The standards and practices of the key professions —not just lawyers but accountants, engineers, architects and all the other skills essential to a modern urban community —are also British exports.
The educational system reflects the best of British experience. There is active interchange between the territory's universities and polytechnics and British academic institutions. Even at the secondary school level, British educational principles and practices exert a powerful influence. Needless to say, the language of commerce, finance and the professions continues to be English. Again, the Joint Declaration provides considerable reassurance that this state of affairs will continue well into the next century.
The principal cause for concern today is the sharp rise in emigration from the territory. At present, the outflow to new homes in countries like Canada and Australia is running at around 50,000 a year, a high proportion of them well-educated professionals and

1837
successful executives. This brain drain reached critical proportions during 1989 because of the inevitable alarm created among thoughtful Hong Kong people by the imposition of martial law and the rest of the tragic crisis which occurred so unexpectedly in China last year. In a city as cosmopolitan as Hong Kong, the better educated have educational and professional qualifications which enjoy international credibility. Large numbers of them, determined to ensure that their families have assured futures, must feel compelled to make plans to find alternative homes overseas when faced with serious political uncertainties. Several countries are ready to welcome those talented people, who generally arrive with significant financial resources.
For Britain, this situation poses a double threat. In the first place, there is the obvious danger that the loss of such vital talent will impair the efficiency of the Hong Kong community in general but, more especially, of its business world. Obviously, the attractions of Hong Kong as an ultra-modern base for British companies' operations throughout the Asian region would then decline dramatically. But an even more pressing danger is that the loss of the cream of Hong Kong's professional and managerial talent drain off from the territory the very people who have benefited most from their British-style education: the professionals who have undergone training in accordance with standards and syllabuses laid down in the first place by British professional bodies; or the managers and decision-makers whose preferred standards and specifications generally have been those of Britain. In other words, the brain drain threatens to remove from Hong Kong the British executives' closest counterparts in Asia. The result must be to make Hong Kong into a far more difficult environment for us.
There is no point in trying to allay the anxieties of this type of migrant with vague promises. The sophisticated group has made the major contribution to the development of Hong Kong into one of the world's most dynamic business centres. The family backgrounds of these talented individuals makes them all too well aware of the potential political hazards which could lie ahead for Hong Kong on a doomsday scenario, given China's past history. We must be frank and recognise that they had a shock in 1989.
My own conviction, following talks with senior Chinese leaders, including Li Peng, the Chinese Premier, as well as my recent conversations with a cross-section of the business community in Hong Kong, is that the long-term prospects for the territory remain excellent and that the Chinese Government have every intention of honouring the Joint Declaration. There seems to be no wavering in the determination of the Chinese authorities to maintain the uniquely successful community of Hong Kong, which China hopes will make a substantial contribution to China's future modernisation. But when people's nerves have been shaken, as they were in Hong Kong last year, the process of rebuilding confidence in China's good intentions cannot be achieved overnight.
A major priority must be, therefore, to buy time; create a breathing space until the key groups within
1838
the Hong Kong community can look towards 1997 with easy minds. For that reason, the Government's nationality package has a major contribution to make in stablilising the situation. Its key feature is that the individuals most vital to Hong Kong's continued success no longer need to try to arrange an early departure from the territory in order to qualify for a new nationality through residence overseas. Instead, they have been given the details of an extensive, well-organised and carefully targeted programme that will allow those qualified to obtain British citizenship without leaving Hong Kong—I repeat, without leaving Hong Kong. They will have an opportunity to obtain all the comfort and protection which British citizenship brings without having to desert their employers, their professions, or indeed their community, at a time when their talents and experience are urgently required to steer the territory intact through a challenging transition period.
The nationality measure has not received a universal welcome. Some Chinese officials have expressed doubts about its aims. We must address these fears through frank diplomatic exchanges on this issue. I raised this particular issue with the Chinese Premier, Li Peng. His view was that this measure was not necessary in the long term, but he did not address the short-term problem. It has also been argued that the package may well serve to encourage a substantial number of Hong Kong families to migrate to Britian. Again, on the basis of my own personal contacts with the Hong Kong business community over the past 12 months, I believe the opposite to be true and that individuals will be persuaded to postpone their migration plans long enough to give the Joint Declaration enough time to prove its worth. Hong Kong entrepreneurs and executives will not willingly exchange a low tax environment for what they regard as a penal tax regime in the UK.
There is, however, one aspect of the nationality package which is less than totally satisfactory. It is clear that a number of other countries with established links with Hong Kong, and with major companies trading there, are taking steps to grant citizenship or right of entry to certain Hong Kong citizens working for their country's companies in Hong Kong. These countries include a number of our fellow EC members. In short, they are looking quite unashamedly to further their own national interests by ensuring that those of their companies with major operations in Hong Kong are able to offer passports to key employees. By contraxt, our Government's nationality package —although it provides some element of priority under the point scoring system for Hong Kong citizens working for British companies —has very little in it to safeguard the position of the UK, as opposed to the position of Hong Kong. This is reflected by the low weighting of British links in the points system determining qualification for British passports. I understand that only 50 points out of a maximum of 800 points can be earned for British links. British business interests will have to compete with other British links within the 50 points, and that seems to me to reflect a low regard by the Hong Kong Administration for the

1839
contribution made to the UK economy by UK controlled business interests in Hong Kong.
In their original proposals the Government did indeed address this point by proposing a secondment scheme which would have been a particular benefit to those British companies with operations both here and in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, Ministers have not felt able to include that provision in the legislation and are now looking at alternatives. While I must declare an obvious interest in this matter as the chairman and chief executive of a company with major Hong Kong and British interests, I would most strongly urge my noble friends to identify a means, either within the legislation or outside it, to accord to British companies the same degree of support as other governments are giving to their companies with operations in Hong Kong.
That said, I wholeheartedly commend this Bill to your Lordships. I cannot, therefore, comprehend or accept the unfortunate comment about an alien culture advanced in another place against the Government's nationality proposals. I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the principal antagonists of the package is a board member of a company which recently made great efforts to obtain a licence to operate a privileged franchise in Hong Kong. It would seem that to some politicians Hong Kong's money is acceptable, but not the people who provide it.
If the Government initiative is rejected, we shall inevitably experience a steady erosion of the £2 billion per annum contribution to our balance of payments and the responsibility for that will have to be placed directly on those who are vociferously and emotionally seeking to reject the modest package proposed by Her Majesty's Government. If we fail, through our own lack of initiative, to maintain a vibrant Hong Kong, we may be sure that both Hong Kong's and China's, memories will be long and British businessmen in the next century will have to pay, in terms of lost profit opportunities, for a lack for foresight on our part today in maintaining the wellbeing of Hong Kong.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, will he make clear, without necessarily mentioning a name, that the gentleman in another place to whom he referred is not a Member of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, I can confirm that.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I confine my speech to a single important issue of principle —the exclusion of judicial review in a system designed to bolster confidence in Hong Kong. The provisions of the Bill are unclear and the task to which your Lordships may think we should set ourselves in Committee is to clarify them.
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
1840
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".
Clause 3(4) provides:
"Section 1(5) above shall apply to a decision made by a public officer by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above as it applies to a decision made by the Governor".
Those provisions undoubtedly exclude judicial review of discretionary decisions by the Governor or public officers. The Government do not dispute that. The object of the provisions is to oust the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts to review discretionary decisions. It is not a heartening provision to read in the Bill at a time when a major object of policy for Hong Kong should be the advancement of democracy and respect for the rule of law.
Let me make plain what I am not saying. I am not advocating an appeal system which would be a re-run of the initial decision-making process. I am not advocating the courts substituting their decision for the Governor's decision. There is a great deal of misunderstanding of what judicial review is about. It is about neither of those things. Discretionary decisions under statutory powers can be reviewed by the courts on very narrow grounds: error of law —that the decision-making body neglected relevant or took into account irrelevant considerations, the decision-maker primarily determining what are relevant and what are irrelevant considerations; or that the decision-maker acted in breach of the rules of natural justice, for example by denying an individual the opportunity to reply to a serious allegation against him in a personal respect, by failing to honour an undertaking to follow a particular procedure in a particular case or by making a decision that was perverse or irrational.
The courts never substitute their discretion for that of the administrator. They review on those very narrow grounds and generally the effect of a decision adverse to the administration is only to require it to go through the decision-making process properly. It does not require it to change its mind, but it greatly adds to public confidence in the administrative process.
It is disheartening to see those modest and limited remedies excluded at a time when we should be seen to be advancing respect for the rule of law in Hong Kong. It is disheartening too to see the Governor in terms relieved of any obligation to give reasons for those critical decisions over individuals' lives. In the United Kingdom today it is widely regarded as the badge of good public administration to give reasons for discretionary decisions. Today is not time for a lesser standard in Hong Kong, especially since the administration of the new points system is bound to attract charges, however groundless, of cronyism, favouritism and even worse.
Finally, there is the question of whether the effect of this clause is not merely to exclude judicial review of discretionary decisions but to prevent review of a failure to accord statutory rights en route to the discretionary decision. The Government say that the clause does not have that effect, but it is doubtful and the statute should surely be clarified. A provision along the lines of Section 44(3) of the British

1841
Nationality Act is required. Nothing in that section affects the jurisdiction of any court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of that Act.
Let me give an example. Under Clause 3 the Governor may, and obviously will, make regulations governing the manner under which applications are to be made to him. The regulations may make different provisions for different cases. It should be made clear that anyone who is denied his proper rights under the regulations should be entitled to go to the courts to have them upheld.
Perhaps I may give another example. The selection scheme to be set out by an Order in Council may specify different criteria or different selection methods for different classes of person. Let us suppose that the Governor departs from those in considering a particular case and applies the wrong criteria or the wrong selection methods. I would not be happy without an express provision that he could be challenged in the courts when Clause 1(5) so emphatically lays down an absolute bar on questioning his discretionary decisions in the courts. There should be no fear of judicial review, of the floodgates being opened. The courts have to grant leave for an application to proceed. Frivolous or hopeless cases are easily weeded out. It is only the reasonably arguable cases that go forward.
The provisions of the Bill to which I have been calling attention are a test of the sincerity of our commitment to the rule of law in Hong Kong and I do not doubt that noble Lords will desire to consider those provisions with care in Committee.
1.5 pm.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I cannot imagine that anyone rises to his feet for the first time to address this House without feelings of trepidation. I certainly have such feelings myself and, if anything, they are increased by having to follow speeches of such distinction from all sides of the House. I should particularly like to mention the speeches of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter and of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, and to stand here and acknowledge that I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, whose unique status and knowledge in this matter is, I am sure, acknowledged on all sides of the House.
I am told by the powers that be that watch over our destinies here that a maiden speech is supposed to model itself on those eponymous young ladies and show decorum and modesty. I shall try not to stray from the straight path of virtue into the realms of controversy but if I do I hope that I shall have your Lordships' indulgence because this a matter and a Bill which necessarily arouse strong feelings.
In introducing the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the Sino-British Declaration stood on solid foundations. We must hope that it does, but it seems to be a declaration that requries more and more buttresses as nervousness about 1997 increases. One of Her Majesty's Government's main buttresses has to been to propitiate Beijing by somewhat back-pedalling on the process of democratic reform. Admittedly, there is —in my
1842
view, admirably —a Bill of Rights proposed for Hong Kong. That prompts the slightly disrespectful question that if it is appropriate for Hong Kong, why should we not enjoy it in the United Kingdom? However, when it comes to other questions of democratic elections and institutions, the proposals seem to be very limited indeed.
The regime in Beijing consists of old men and fallible men. No doubt sooner or later they will go the way of Ceausescu, Honecker and other tyrants. However, so long as the regime that exists in Beijing is in power, is it not natural that people in Hong Kong will remember Tibet and Tiananmen Square? Is it not natural that confidence will continue to be at best precarious?
There is evidence of declining confidence in Hong Kong. There have already been references to that point in the debate. Effectively, the rate of emigration from Hong Kong has trebled between 1986 and now. Successful people from Hong Kong have already gone to establish their bases in Canada, Australia and the United States. Indeed. Vancouver is today a boom city on inward investment from Hong Kong to Canada.
Inward investment to Hong Kong is regrettably a different story. A survey of reports about Hong Kong published in the financial press of the United States over the last six months of last year showed that in almost every case stories about Hong Kong were coupled with a mention of the lack of confidence. I should like to read to the House a short quotation from an article which appeared in the New York Review of 15th March 1990. I commend it to those noble Lords who have not had the chance to read it. In the article Ian Buruma said:
"Now, more than ever, Hong Kong feels like a city without a past, or a future, only a frenzied presence. Almost the only institution still talking about big investments in the future is the government itself, just to keep the morale up, to show that not all is lost. A new airport is planned, for example, but quite who will finance such a grand project is still unknown".
There is —and I think we must accept it —a crisis of confidence, both local and international, in Hong Kong.
The answer should be for the Government to take such measures as will give people in Hong Kong the confidence to stay put. That has been the motive of the policy put forward so eloquently by the leader of my party and his colleagues in another place and put forward this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The provision of British citizenship to British subjects in Hong Kong is not designed to promote emigration from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom, but rather to provide a safety net which will increase the confidence of those in Hong Kong who have to walk the high wire from now to an uncertain future. It is a policy about persuading people to stay in Hong Kong, not about encouraging them to leave.
I regret to say that the Government's policies fall a long way short of this right and rational policy but I acknowledge that the Bill is a short step in the right direction. I suspect that, even in their own relatively modest terms, the Government will rapidly find the number of 50,000 inadequate. There will be justified pressures from business on the lines described just

1843
now by the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, if the regulations and the points system seem somewhat weighted towards civil servants and weighted away from the absolutely key management skills that are needed for British businesses in Hong Kong to retain key managers. There will be pressures from expatriate spouses and from the potentially stateless. There will be many others. There will be good cases and hard cases. The Government will find themselves increasingly trying to force a quart into a pint pot. I suspect —indeed I predict —that the Government will have to come back on this mattter. If they find the numbers to be inadequate even in their own terms, I hope that they will have the courage to come back and increase the numbers.
Some noble Lords will no doubt support the Bill on the basis that the best should not be made the enemy of the good. I shall support the Bill as revised by your Lordships in Committee, but not on that basis. For I do not believe that this is a good Bill. I regret to say that it is a rather sorry little Bill. I shall support it because I do not believe that the best should be allowed to be the accomplice of the worst. The worst was represented in another place by that rather unappealing mixture of near racism in some quarters and what seemed suspiciously like electoral hypocrisy in others.
I conclude on a personal note. I first went to Hong Kong more than 30 years ago as a young officer in the Gurkhas. I could not have imagined then that in 1990 voices of senior politicians in Britain would be raised in favour of abdicating our responsibilities and of leaving Hong Kong in the lurch. The end of empire has not been easy for Britain. We have no, doubt made errors and misjudgments. But I do not recall before hearing voices raised of senior politicians who contemplated running away from our responsibilities. For all its inadequacies, the Bill is an acknowledgment of responsibility. It is in that spirit that I believe it should be supported.
1.15 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and to be able to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I do so with all the greater pleasure since I now know that he was a Gurkha officer in Hong Kong. It was a most interesting and eloquent speech. I hope that we shall frequently hear him in the House.
However cautiously he welcomed the Bill, I certainly welcome it unreservedly. As the noble Earl said in introducing the Bill, Hong Kong is moving into a difficult transitional period. During that period it is quite essential that the administrative, social and other systems should be at peak performance. That is now at risk because the key people able to ensure it are leaving. They are leaving simply to qualify for an insurance of a citizenship carrying with it a right of abode.
On no account should we criticise them for doing that. Whatever may be their fortitude and devotion to Hong Kong—I am sure that in most cases it is very high —the pressure on them from their parents, from their children and from their relatives to seek
1844
an insurance for family reasons is enormous. I strongly support the Government in tackling the problem in this way and in directing this substantial injection of British citizenship without residence qualifications at this type of person.
I have no doubt about the policy, but one wishes that the numbers could have been higher. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. But we have got this far with these numbers, which are indeed very substantial. The essential point is to pass on, implement the Bill and use the numbers to reduce the flow of emigration as quickly as possible so as to confront this immediate problem.
The limitation on numbers involves divisiveness between those given and those refused. I do not see how that can be avoided. I should like to put the, as it were, moral point in this way. Our responsibility as I see it is to all Hong Kong. For the vast majority of people in Hong Kong the question of emigration simply does not arise. If we are to discharge our responsibility to them, we must ensure that the commerce that employs them, the administration that protects them, the public and social services that support them, and hitherto have done so on a steadily rising standard of living, continue to keep going. But that is under threat because the people most able to ensure it are leaving in search of an alternative citizenship. I am therefore convinced that aiming at this selection of people the amount of citizenship available is right, is morally right and is in the wider interest of all people in Hong Kong. The Bill places very heavy responsibilities on the Governor of Hong Kong and his staff. I can only say that such responsibilities could not be placed in safer or more careful hands at this time.
I regret the fact that the Chinese have been critical of the Bill. However, I hope that they will realise that while the need for action of this sort may not have been foreseen when the Joint Declaration was made in 1984, neither was it excluded by its terms if taken before 1997. 1 also hope that they will come to see that in the circumstances we have no alternative if stability and prosperity are to be preserved. Perhaps, too, they will consider whether there is something that they can do to encourage people to stay.
The Minister of State will be visiting Peking next month. A good mutual understanding between the two governments is important in world terms, and certainly is the basis upon which Hong Kong's prosperity must be built. The past 12 months have been unhappy. But time moves on. We should not forget the considerable imagination and statesmanship that China has shown for Hong Kong over many years. Despite what has happened in China, work on future arrangements has progressed —point by careful point has gradually been put behind us. Of course, much may still remain to be done but the immediate problem is to stop the future which is now being built being eroded by this wave of emigration to which the Bill is addressed.
Most of the points that I wish to make have already been made by previous speakers in the debate. However, there is just one point that I should like to add. It concerns the ethnic minorities. I accept

1845
that their problem is additional to that addressed in the Bill and that the limit on heads of household in the legislation leaves us no room for others. But these people should not be forgotten. I remember very well the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in your Lordships' House in 1986. It was much welcomed at the time. However, times change; of course they change, if they did not do so this Bill would not now be before the House.
I suggest to the Government that, under the new circumstances, the claims of these people to British citizenship should be reconsidered. I do not want to deflect this debate into the complexities of that associated but different issue. I believe that on examination the Government would find that the numbers involved are very small. Surely at a time when we are about to register up to 225,000 people, the opportunity should be taken in addition to tackle this long standing and emotive problem so worthy of your Lordships' attention. However, I leave that aspect of the matter aside for the moment. Perhaps there will be opportunities to talk about it in Committee. In the meantime, I urge your Lordships to support the Bill and to do everything possible to ensure its speedy implementation.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I suspect that I shall follow many of the remarks and aspirations which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with all his experience, made plain in his speech. I warmly support the Bill. I hope that it has a rapid and unhindered passage through your Lordships' House. As we have heard, the haemorrhage of talent from Hong Kong, covering many aspects and sectors of its life and society, has been an increasing worry over recent years. Of course it is true, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said when introducing the Bill, that Hong Kong has never been a truly static society; indeed, people have always come and gone. However, recent circumstances have increased the number of emigrants to truly frightening and damaging proportions. If Hong Kong's economic position, its stability and the skill of its administration are to be retained, this wastage must at least be slowed down and —it is to be hoped — stopped.
The circumstances which have led to the increase have already been mentioned and I shall not rehearse them. However, during the time that I had ministerial responsibility for Hong Kong, it became quite clear to me and my ministerial colleagues that some method within our own control had to be devised to increase in the people of Hong Kong the confidence to remain there up until 1997 and beyond. Only in that way, coupled of necessity with a most supportive attitude on the part of the People's Republic of China, as the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out, could Hong Kong's dynamic entrepreneurial and sophisticated society be maintained —to the benefit of its people and also to the ultimate advantage of the People's Republic of China.
I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said about democratisation and what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord
1846
Mishcon —who I am sorry to say is not in his place at present —as a cure-all for increasing confidence. Of course, very considerable progress has been made in democratisation in many different ways over the years. It may not have taken place as fast as some people would have wished; nevertheless, it is there. To that extent it provides part of the confidence which people require, although it certainly does not provide it all.
Many people in Hong Kong have argued long and hard —and I have had considerable exposure to their views over the past few years —that some form of package granting right of abode in the United Kingdom should be brought forward. They say that such a measure would provide the very valid insurance policy which they feel it is Britain's responsibility —indeed, its duty —to give. However, in my view there has been throughout a realisation that it would have been impossible for this country to guarantee the right of abode here to all Hong Kong citizens. Certainly the political realities of pressing for that guarantee have been made clear to the people of Hong Kong over recent months. I think that that has been broadly accepted by them.
I last visited Hong Kong in February, at about the time that the immigration package was announced. There seemed to be a general welcome for it, and that has been made clear to me in many subsequent conversations. The difficulty is that any scheme must to a greater or less extent be divisive. There seems to be no way of getting away from that fact. Nevertheless, I have no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, hinted, that the methods to be employed by the Governor and the administration in Hong Kong in selecting who will be eligible for right of abode in this country will be as fair, as far sighted, and as balanced as possible.
I share to some extent the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord MacLehose, that provision for only 50,000 heads of family provides a more limited choice than many may find desirable. Acceptable it may be —but only just. It will, perhaps, increase the number of hard cases to be decided. That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in his admirable maiden speech. It it also bound to diminish choice and to make that aspect more difficult. Moreover, from what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in his opening remarks, it seems that he too understood the force of the argument. I should have liked to see the opportunity afforded to a greater number of heads of family. It worries me that the current severe drain of expertise might be difficult to stem rapidly enough, even given the package of measures announced. A greater number of heads of families might have constrained those whose moves abroad are imminent.
One other factor leaves me a little hesitant —the difference between 50,000 heads of families, as written into the Bill, and a total figure of some 225,000, which is the figure widely canvassed at about the time the package was announced. The mathematics seem a little curious. I am not convinced that the size of the families of the 50,000 will be as great as the governments here and in Hong Kong have estimated. Expectations in Hong

1847
Kong have perhaps been raised by that overall figure. It concerns me that, to some degree at any rate, those expectations have been sold just a little short.
However, those two small points apart and being acutely aware of the arguments in favour of the proposed scheme, I believe that the Bill is about as good as any of us could have expected. Should an appeals system be introduced or pressed for, there is a real risk that matters could become more complicated than some believe they already are and the selection scheme made much more difficult to set up.
I stress again the real and urgent need, which I have expressed in Hong Kong and which I firmly believe to be the case, that Britain's duty and honour are at stake. The moral aspect, to which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York referred, is a real one. Under the circumstances of Hong Kong's reversion to China in 1997, a territory and people so dramatically successful should be given every opportunity to remain so. There is need to give them as much assurance and insurance as possible. We cannot shirk our responsibility for so doing. Others might play their part, notably the People's Republic of China. But we owe it to the people of Hong Kong, who rightly expect it of us, to do all that we can to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book with all speed.
1.32 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wonder whether I shall possibly be the only person in the debate who so objects to the Bill that I shall probably upset a number of your Lordships. The Bill has been described as a "sorry little Bill" by the maiden speaker, whom I congratulate on his speech. I describe it in stronger language. It is a tawdry little Bill that does the Conservative Government no honour and unfortunately places Members of the other place in some odium.
I should like to speak about the principle of the Bill, some of the details of the Bill and some of the practical results of the Bill. First, the principle: we are asked to believe that by giving the professional people, the leadership and the leading administrators in Hong Kong the opportunity to leave (the right of abode in this country) we shall persuade them to stay. The logic of the approach escapes me. They might, if they were paid enough money, I suppose, be persuaded to stay until 1997. Then, almost by definition, they would take advantage of their British passports and come to live in Britain. I cannot see that that would be to the long-term benefit of Hong Kong.
I ask your Lordships to ponder on what we mean by citizenship. What do we expect of our citizens? What do they receive in exchange? Citizenship confers a responsibility on the citizen to owe allegiance to, and some respect and support for, the place that gives them citizenship. They owe a responsibility to the "city" of which they are a citizen. To balance that, the city of which they are a citizen has a responsibility to look after its citizens.
If someone in Hong Kong has such a citizenship of this country, for which institution or group of
1848
people will he or she be working? Whose best interests will that individual be seeking? Will he or she be seeking the best interests of Britain or of Hong Kong? If there are 50,000 British citizens in senior positions in Hong Kong with a right of abode in this country, they will owe an allegiance to this country. They will do what is best for this country not what is best for Hong Kong. I am not sure that that is what we should be doing in our position of responsibility vis à vis Hong Kong, because of our historical links with that, effectively, city.
The whole process of conferring a limited number of citizenships out of the total population of Hong Kong is a nonsense. What we ask the British people, the people of Hong Kong and the people of China to believe is an illogicality.
I shall now touch upon a couple of points within the Bill which grieve me. The first relates to Schedule 1, Paragraph 5(1)(c), which authorises:
"the Governor to decide at his discretion between persons equally qualified under the scheme".
How will the Governor make that decision? It is an open invitation to bribery. Then, sub-paragraph (2) provides:
"A scheme may also in particular include provisions authorising the Governor to make a recommendation in respect of any person who, having regard to such matters as are specified in the scheme, he considers should be recommended in view of his special contribution to the economy of Hong Kong".
Apart from the bribery aspect, we are asking the Governor to discriminate in favour of wealthy people. The concept that British citizenship (the right of abode and the right to vote in our elections) can bought by and sold to the highest bidder is objectionable.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for a moment. It is illuminating to hear what he has to say. I wonder whether he could tell the House if he has visited Hong Kong and, if he has, when his last visit was.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I have not had the pleasure of visiting Hong Kong, and I am not sure that I ever shall. I do not believe that that is necessarily relevant. If we are expected to make decisions affecting people in foreign countries, is every Member of the House and of the other place to be flown around the world to get a personal view on the situation? I think not.
Another point about the detail of the Bill that concerns me is contained in Schedule 2, paragraph 3. The provisions there appear to place a restriction on whom a British citizen may marry. I find that rather objectionable. We talk about living in a free society, yet we place that kind of restriction on people. I find that totally objectionable.
I now turn to the practical implications of the Bill. What, effectively, will the Bill do? We have heard that emigration from Hong Kong has risen from 20,000 to 40,000 a year over the past nine years. We have also heard how a large proportion of those emigrants can be described as key professional people. I suggest that this Bill is nothing more than a raiding party which effectively seeks to obtain for this country some of the rich pickings in terms of

1849
highly-qualified people who are emigrating from Hong Kong. In that respect, it has nothing to do with support for Hong Kong but everything to do with supporting the United Kingdom economy.
The need for that support results from the lack of education and training that has prevailed over the past 10 years of Tory Government. We have to find skilled people from somewhere and 50,000 Hong Kong Chinese with professional qualifications, skills and aptitudes will no doubt help a little. Money will change hands. I wonder what the going rate for Hong Kong British citizenship will be and where that money will end up. I suspect that a great deal of it will end up in the back pockets of senior Tory politicians.
I wonder which way these new British citizens will vote when it comes to an election. I calculate that there will be something like 100,000 voters involved, which is equivalent to at least three extra MPs. I object to the prostitution of British citizenship for the benefit of the Conservative Party.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am not a Member of the Conservative Party. The noble Lord has not done credit to his case by the latter observations in this speech.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, using the noun "friend" in a context perhaps wider than that usually used in your Lordships' House, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham on a quite outstanding maiden speech. He and I spent an extended period together about 20 years ago at a certain educational establishment on the banks of the Charles River in Massachusetts. I know at first hand of his very considerable ability. Though I shall not guarantee always to agree with him politically, I much look foward to hearing him on many future occasions in your Lordships' House.
I apoligise to my noble friend the Minister and to the House if I have to leave before the end of this debate. I have a long-standing engagement elsewhere in London at four o'clock. Therefore, should this debate run beyond 3.30 p.m. I shall be unable to stay for what surely by then will be the winding-up speeches.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, most sincerely. It is the first time in 15 years in your Lordships' House that I can say quite sincerely that I disagreed with every single word that he said. Then to rise after an interjection from my noble friend Lord Glenarthur to say that he has never even visited Hong Kong does a great injustice to himself and to his party and certainly it is rude in the extreme to Hong Kong.
I should like to register my very firm support for this Bill. My only reservation is that I would have liked it to have gone a little further. As other noble Lords have pointed out today and as I have pointed out on previous occasions, the core of professionals, managers and those with technical skills on whom Hong Kong basically depends for its undoubted success amounts to about 300,000 people. That is the realistic number which I had hoped we would be
1850
considering. Nevertheless, 50,000 people and their dependent families is an excellent beginning, particularly, as has been said, unlike the case with Canada, Australia and the United States, this Bill does not require residential qualification outside Hong Kong.
I applaud the Government's courageous stance in the teeth of strong opposition not least from among its own ranks. The Hong Kong authorities are confident that the Bill will staunch the current 50,000 to 60,000 haemorrhage of talented people provided the Bill receives Royal Assent in the very near future. I most sincerely hope that it will.
Today I wish to revert to an issue that I have raised on a number of occasions in previous years. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, concentrated on it towards the end of his speech. I refer to the future of the non-ethnic Chinese minorities in Hong Kong. These people are British dependent territory citizens. It is estimated that they number about 11,000 persons in total; that is to say, about 3,300 heads of households. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report of last year found that they,
"are inadequately provided for by the Joint Declaration".
Yet nothing has been done in the Bill to alleviate the plight of these people. As far as I am aware, they are not eligible for Chinese nationality and neither is the British national overseas passport transmissible after two generations. Thus many of them have no rights of residence in this or any country other than Hong Kong. Therefore, statelessness is a real possibility for these people.
The Chinese have made their attitude to those who do not have Chinese nationality abundantly clear by their reaction to this Bill and its proposals. The only indication that such people have that their situation is recognised is contained in speeches in this House and in another place. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, instanced the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur in 1986 which at that time was most welcome.
However, that assurance and undertaking given in 1986, though repeated since, pre-dates the tragic events of June 1989 and pre-dates this Bill and the Chinese reaction to it. I do not think that it is going too far to say that we now have to recognise that we can no longer repose the same amount of trust and confidence in the Chinese leadership than perhaps mistakenly we did then.
I also have a series of what I fear to be rhetorical questions for my noble friend. I say "fear to be" because while they are questions to which good responses should be available, I fear that I may not receive substantive answers. In terms of the statement made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, what constitutes "pressure to leave Hong Kong"? How shall we be able to discover whether these people are suffering this pressure? Who will decide? How, as a practical matter, will we be able to carry out their removal from Hong Kong? Perhaps most importantly, how will this Government make their assurance binding on future governments? I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, whether, if needs be, any future Labour Government would honour that assurance?

1851
I am not today campaigning, as I might be tempted to do, for the right of abode in order to give some I million BDTC passport holders —that is, 300,000 heads of family plus their dependants —the right of abode or British citizenship. However, I should like to point out that, because of the way the Bill is drafted, the total numbers involved are necessarily somewhat uncertain. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has pointed out, the figure of 225,000 is estimated to be a maximum. On the other hand, we have heard figures of 250,000 mentioned. In that context an additional 11,000 non-ethnic Chinese, whose case even aroused the sympathy of my right honourable friend the Member for Chingford in another place, would not seem to be a significant increase.
Even the figure of 3,300 heads of family is almost certainly higher than is relevant in this context, as some of them will already have other passports and others may well be granted British citizenship within the 50,000 envisaged in this Bill. We are probably talking of no more than an extra, say, 2,000 heads of family. As the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, has done, I urge the Government most strongly to consider the fate of these people. They are our responsibility and we should not bear that responsibility lightly.
Reverting to the Bill and indeed to Hong Kong on a broader front, I hope I may add my voice as strongly and as powerfully as I can in supporting and indeed complimenting Sir David Wilson, the Governor of Hong Kong, on the way he has handled, and indeed is handling, all the many highly complex issues relating to Hong Kong. I have absolutely no doubt that he will continue in the same vein in the future and in particular in his exercise of integrity with regard to the discretion given to him under this Bill.
1.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw; My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and other noble Lords who have much experience of Hong Kong. As a result most of what I have prepared has already been said by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in his marvellous maiden speech. I am sure we all look forward to hearing more of what he has to say on future occasions. The noble Lord made reference in particular to the new airport. I hope to mention it also a little later on.
I wish to declare an interest in that I am an outside director of a company that employs more than 5,000 people in Hong Kong. I was in Hong Kong earlier this year when this Bill had its Second Reading in another place. I was able to gauge at least some initial reactions of various sections of the community in Hong Kong. I prefer to call this Bill the passport Bill. It is a minimal piece of legislation. In my view it in no way compensates for the unfulfilled obligations that Britain has towards the people of Hong Kong. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, it at least acknowledges them. Therefore I wish to support it.
1852
The debate on Second Reading in another place was seen in Hong Kong as rather unimportant. Many different political views were expressed, but in what was an interesting debate it was interesting to note that all the opinions concerned the importance of the impact of this Bill on people in Britain. Little was said about its impact on people in Hong Kong, although the usual remarks were made about stability. I feel that this Bill was spawned by the British Nationality Act 1981. I do not like to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but, as I said at the time of the passing of that Act, it was not about nationality of British citizens as its title misleadingly implies; rather, it was about the control of immigration into this country of those British passport holders in Hong Kong and elsewhere who were entitled to a right of abode in Britain. I opposed the Act at that time for that very reason.
There were also those who opposed this Bill in another place. They might have done so out of some misguided form of patriotism or out of political opportunism. Neither of those two factors has shown up in the debate today, thank goodness. This debate provides an opportunity to obtain some much needed clarification on certain points contained in the Bill. For instance, I am still not clear on the position of non-British spouses of British citizens working in Hong Kong. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in his rather objectionable remarks. He mentioned that point, however, and I wonder whether the Minister can say whether those spouses will have the same rights as any other spouse married to a British passport holder. If that is not the case, I hope the Minister will explain why.
Perhaps I have not read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum very well. However, I cannot see how any distinction can be fairly made in situations of this kind. I asked that question in another form during the passage of the British Nationality Act, but I was not given a reply. Therefore I shall ask it again. Can the noble Earl make a distinction in any terms between a holder of a British passport who resides in Hong Kong and a British passport holder who resides in, say, Westminster? If he cannot do so, then how can a spouse of such a passport holder be judged differently simply because he or she lives in Hong Kong?
Schedule 2 to the Bill would indicate that special application has to be made to the Governor of Hong Kong for his recommendation before these rights can be granted. Perhaps the noble Earl can confirm that. Will he also say on what basis this distinction has been made? The only distinction or difference I can see is that the majority of residents of Hong Kong are of the same race, colour and religion as my lady wife, which happens to be different from the majority of British citizens. Is this, therefore, the basis on which the special application has to be made to the Governor of Hong Kong for the spouse of a British passport holder resident in Hong Kong? If that is so, that is a direct contradiction of what appears to be stated in Clause 2(3) of the Bill which refers to Section 42 of the original British Nationality Act which specifies that discretion must be exercised

1853
without regard to "race, colour or religion". I may have this matter all wrong and perhaps the Minister can put me right. I sincerely hope that I have got it wrong and that it can be clarified as some concern has been expressed to me on this point.
There is also the matter of the points system. Some of us may just be able to remember the points that were awarded for rations during the war. One had to clock up a certain number of points to obtain a steak, a piece of mutton or a rasher of bacon. On trying to read through the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the same thoughts run through my mind about how to get the right number of points to get the various pieces of paper which can get me what I want. However, there is a sad aspect to the points system and it has been raised by a number of noble Lords. The ethnic minorities do not even get a ration book. I am taking the analogy one stage further. They do not even have any points to start with. That has been mentioned but overlooked time and time again. I hope that when the application of the so-called points system is put into operation, some kind of understanding of the situation of ethnic minorities will be taken into consideration.
Another point has been made by a number of noble Lords about assessing the Britishness of firms to entitle people to a few more points than have been indicated to date. One need not be legalistic about this. I am sure there can be a way of deciding how British a company is —for example, whether it is registered in this country or elsewhere. That is common sense for these people which have to make Hong Kong work in a commercial sense. I hope that that point will be taken into consideration when this Bill is implemented.
Other noble Lords have referred to the age bar. There will be a need for executives in both the administration and in businesses to have had experience of some of the rougher times that have occurred in other parts of the world as well as having experience in Hong Kong. They need such experience to see their companies, or administrative sections of the Government, through what could be difficult periods. Young men in their thirties and forties may be good at making money and imaginative in many ways, but they are not the right people to hold on to stability and to justify what they are doing without asking too many questions during a difficult period of upheaval or transition. I hope that that point will also be taken into consideration when the practical aspects of the Bill are considered.
Many people have spoken about emigration, saying that everyone is leaving Hong Kong for other, safer countries because of the uncertainty about the future. That is given as one of the main reasons for the Bill; it is intended to give confidence. However, as I have said before, only a few people are affected by it. The majority have to stay, keep their jobs —one hopes —and look to the future for their families and themselves.
I have said in previous debates on Hong Kong and I shall say again that companies and government departments must have a system for further training.
1854
There must be properly set out ladders for the enhancement of individual careers that will span beyond 1997. The new regime which comes in from mainland China will not bring new management skills; quite the reverse. It will have to lean very heavily on the management skills available in Hong Kong, whether to operate the high-speed lifts in the skyscrapers or the complex financial structures on which many companies in Hong Kong are based. It is essential that each company should look to its own people and give them some security for the future.
The syndrome of the packed suitcase at the bottom of the stairs, the passport ready and the air ticket already booked has to go. The majority of people have to decide to stay on in Hong Kong. They should unpack their suitcases, cancel their air tickets and convince themselves that they are staying.
I do not know what will happen. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but Hong Kong has to work. The only way that it can work is not through the politicians or through any policital freedoms which may or may not be won or written on pieces of paper; it has to work as an international business capital, a business capital with a future and with a future for its people. The extension of the airport or the container port are essential capital programmes which it must be agreed should be undertaken now. They must be seen to be undertaken now and must span beyond 1997.
When the right honourable gentleman the Minister of State goes to Peking he should make it clear that the Government of the People's Republic of China, whatever they may or may not be doing politically, must come down to earth regarding their capital programmes for Hong Kong. If the role of Hong Kong as an international business capital is undermined during the next five or six years everyone in Hong Kong will suffer— economically, politically and in any other way that one cares to mention. That has nothing to do with passports to allow a minority to come back to this country.
When I was in Hong Kong the analogy of the main river and the well of plenty was explained to me. The politics of mainland China can be seen as a great main river that determines its own course, pushing the banks back here and there, but it has nothing to do with the well of plenty in Hong Kong. My worry is that the politics of the mainstream river will burst its banks and muddy the waters of the well so that it is no longer a well of plenty.
Those people who advocate democracy in Hong Kong must be very careful in their choice of phraseology. It is essential that it is accepted that the freedoms that have been won or tacitly accepted, without any form of democracy, by this Government and the Government of Hong Kong for the past 100 years will continue. They must not be mixed up with slogans about democracy which can be confused with the political developments in mainland China. That has nothing to do with Hong Kong. If there is confusion in the minds of those who run mainland China which leads them to believe that Hong Kong is becoming a political as well as a financial centre, that would endanger not only the businesses but also the lives of everyone there. Therefore, I hope that

1855
that point can be clarified and that there will be restraint in the terminology used. There should be determination that those freedoms which have made Hong Kong great will continue well beyond 1997.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has treated us to a most interesting and original speech. I am delighted to be able to follow it and to endorse the noble Lord's final words. It is extremely important that we move forward carefully and cautiously in relation to the progressive democratisation of institutions in Hong Kong. It can so often become the excuse for more heady reactions and for excessive demands which would be counter-productive in the context of Hong Kong.
As was noted on another occasion when Hong Kong affairs were debated in your Lordships' House, in relation to democracy and the progressive move towards wider popular representation and the means for achieving that in Hong Kong institutions, it is essential above all that whatever is established in Hong Kong endures in that form beyond 1997. If any changes were to be introduced today which gave encouragement in the short term to individuals calling for such moves but which did not endure beyond 1997 it would be a grave error of judgment on our part. Therefore I hope that those making pleas from the Labour Benches and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will come to recognise the overriding need for care and caution.
That is very much a view expressed to me by OMELCO, not least by its distinguished leader. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House would wish to express their warmest congratulations to her on the significant honour bestowed upon her in the recent Birthday Honours. It is richly deserved. I am sure that she would be the first to accept that it is also a recognition of the responsible role that the legislative councils have played during the course of the very difficult months since the summer of last year.
It would be wrong to attempt to widen the scope of the Bill. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Geddes, about the ethnic Asian minorities. If we can do something for them, it would be worthwhile and correct on our part. But I do not think that this Bill should be used as an attempt to encompass too many differing aspects of immigration.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers reminded the House when he presented the Bill for Second Reading, it is not a general immigration Bill. It is a nationality Bill with very limited scope both in time and objective. It is not designed to go beyond 1997; it is designed to deal with a requirement for our immediate and urgent consideration. It is limited also with regard to the numbers that it attempts to accommodate.
Like others of my noble friends who have spoken, I could have wished the numbers to have been much greater. I believe that they could and should have been much greater. We have been advised against offering a cheque which we should not be able to
1856
honour. I should certainly be prepared to honour the cheque should it be called on in the case of the numbers contained in this legislation. I should have been prepared to go for a larger figure. Indeed, I pressed for a much larger figure in our earlier deliberations on this subject.
I totally disagree with those whose voices have been raised, particularly in another place and regrettably very often from Benches on which I sat when I was a Member, to call for tighter curbs and smaller numbers or to warn people against the threat of being engulfed —the word used was "swamped" —by potentially large numbers of immigrants from Hong Kong into this country. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what would take place. It is quite clear to me that most of the speeches were made for purely partisan, narrow-minded constituency reasons. They had little relevance to the realities of the situation in Hong Kong or what would be likely to develop in this country.
If those people were to come to this country, being people of considerable skill and expertise, as has already been underlined, they would contribute substantially to the economic prosperity of this country just as they have been and are now contributing to the prosperity of Hong Kong. We are right to have this Bill before us. I congratulate the Government on persisting with it. In the face of dire threats in another place, they could have taken the easy way out. But that would have been shameful. I am grateful, as I am sure are the people of Hong Kong, that the British Government have not betrayed them.
In the numbers of those who are currently leaving Hong Kong that my noble friend gave to your Lordships' House, he made clear the urgency of the situation, expecting something like 55,000 to leave Hong Kong in the year. They are not just people from any walk of life. That number includes people with highly specialised skills. Something like 13 per cent. of Hong Kong's information science professionals, who include computer experts, have left Hong Kong. That is a drain that cannot be long sustained. One cannot see people of such calibre and expertise leave the colony and expect its prosperity to continue as it has done up to the present time.
Yet we have an obligation under the terms of the Joint Declaration imposed upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure the prosperity of Hong Kong right through to 1997. We mean to fulfil that obligation. This Bill is an earnest of our intention so to do. It is one of the essential instruments to enable us to achieve that objective. That is why I find it hard to understand the attitude of the Chinese Government in Beijing in criticising this measure. If this Bill is in anybody's interest, it is in the interest of the People's Republic of China. I hope that before long mature judgment will prevail in Bejing. I hope that that they will get away from their own fears which have governed them since June 1989 and that they will learn to recognise the reality of the situation and the valiant effort that is being made by the British Government to honour the terms of that Joint Declaration.

1857
I was greatly encouraged to hear the interesting speech of my noble friend Lord Sharp, in which he referred to a recent conversation that he had had with the Chinese Premier. What is encouraging is the reaffimation that we have had once again that it is the intention of the Beijing Government scrupulously to honour their responsibilities in the Joint Declaration.
Some of the terms of the Joint Declaration are very relevant to our discussion today on the Bill. The Joint Declaration gives firm assurances that after 1997 there will be a right to work in Hong Kong; a right of abode in Hong Kong; and a right to travel to and from Hong Kong. Those are some of the provisions that I am sure will be honoured. They have some relevance for the people who may not now be included in the provisions of the Bill. Those people who may not fall within the compass of the points scheme —the selective scheme —and may as a result prove to be disappointed, will still have available to them the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981, although admittedly they will require a resident period to be met in this country should they wish to come to this country.
The Bill seeks only to provide for a small number of people who have an important and significant contribution to make to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. It is a Bill designed to encourage those people to stay in Hong Kong. I do not believe that any of your Lordships would wish the significance of this measure to be exaggerated. But neither do I think that it should be minimised. It is not fair to describe the Bill as a paltry measure. It is not. It is a measure of some considerable importance.
However, the true significance so far as concerns the future of Hong Kong is not so much the Bill, but the attitude of China. China more than any other country has the responsibility for the continuing prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. We have the moral obligations which we are doing our best to discharge. But China can ensure that Hong Kong continues to be the economic success that it has been up to this time, and it is in China's own interest to ensure that that is so.
2.17 pm.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, all noble Lords will endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Eden, has just said: that the only factor that will settle the future of Hong Kong in the long run is the attitude of the People's Republic of China; and that it is indeed very much in the interests of the People's Republic of China that Hong Kong should continue to thrive. We seek to help Hong Kong to get through the immediate difficult years that lie ahead. This Bill will not solve everything. But the package is designed to make people stay. I strongly support the Bill and I hope and believe that it will succeed in its aims. I hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested, Hong Kong can be regarded through the perspective of the series of settlement of dependent territories that started in 1947. This has covered more than 40 territories, of which some 20 were large territories with large populations. There are certain constraints
1858
in common in relation to all those settlements. They are constraints on the capacity of the British Government to determine the conditions of transfer, given the problems of satisfying the different interests affected, whether internal or external. There has never been an option for the United Kingdom Government to impose an ideal solution. We have never been able to do more than try our best to secure the welfare and progress of the citizens of those territories. That has always, and necessarily, involved a measure of compromise between what we saw as being in the best interests of all concerned and what was negotiable. To put the point crudely; British responsibility for a larger territory cannot be terminated without some measure of future risk for someone. Final settlements cannot be assessed in terms of simple right and wrong, and sweeping assertions of British moral obligations to the inhabitants can have only general validity. It is satisfactory that the Bill acknowledges the important specific obligation in relation to sensitive groups in Hong Kong.
We know that our options have been strictly limited. The moral considerations have been referred to by many noble Lords. I see no ground to regard as eligible for right of abode in this country the vast majority of the population of Hong Kong —that is, those who, in comparatively recent years and with full knowledge of the date of the end of the lease on the territories, chose to enter Hong Kong in pursuit of their own economic and social interests.
I am not qualified in the numbers game. However, the number authorised in the Bill appears to be too low and too heavily influenced by exaggerated fears about our contingent absorptive capacity. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. Like the most reverend Primate, I hope that in due course the number will be reconsidered and possibly raised in the light of experience.
It is important that the Bill is implemented as soon as possible and without avoidable delays. Any provision for appeals, as has been suggested in some quarters, is totally unacceptable on grounds of timing. Although I am not a lawyer, I suspect that on those grounds there are strong objections to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, for judicial review. I hope that the Bill will receive your Lordships' support as soon as possible and that it will achieve its aims.
2.25 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, as some of your Lordships may be aware, I am closely associated with a prominent Hong Kong-Chinese business group and I declare my interest.
I should merely like to stress two points and make one comment on the details of the scheme. First, all my friends in the Hong Kong business community, which provides most of the jobs upon which the population depends, warmly welcome the Bill as a limited but real contribution to the restoration of confidence.
However, we welcome it only because we believe that it will help to keep certain of our key personnel

1859
in the territory. We in the business community, for our part, will do our best to persuade those of our employees who receive passports to remain in our employment and, therefore, in Hong Kong. We know already from the reactions of many of those most likely to receive passports under the scheme, that they have every intention of staying if—but in some cases only if—they are successful in obtaining them.
Secondly, I too believe that the Government are to be warmly congratulated on persevering with the Bill in spite of the political problems which it provoked in this country. However, in the same context, we very much regret that the Bill should have caused Hong Kong to become the object of party political controversy in another place.
In recent years it has been a matter for congratulation that British policy towards Hong Kong has been broadly bipartisan or tripartisan. From the point of view of restoring confidence in Hong Kong and also from the point of view of negotiating with Beijing, we believe that it is important to re-establish that bipartisan approach as soon as possible.
At least in your Lordships' House all parties have sought to debate Hong Kong affairs in a constructive, helpful and non-party spirit. For that reason, I warmly welcomed the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, while he does not agree with the Bill, he will not seek unduly to delay its passage and, while he disagrees with the method chosen by the Government to restore confidence, he will do all he can to work towards the restoration of confidence in Hong Kong.
However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, to take this opportunity to give the people of Hong Kong one specific assurance. To my mind it is unthinkable that once an individual has been granted British nationality under the Bill if it reaches the statute book, a future government should seek to remove that nationality from him. However, there has been so much speculation on the subject in Hong Kong, where people do not always totally understand our procedures, that I very much hope the noble Baroness will confirm that her party, if it came to power in the future, would have no such intention, as I feel sure is the case.
It had not been my intention to comment upon details of the draft scheme. However, in view of the Minister's specific reference to extra points being awarded to employees of British firms, I believe that I should point out that that provision poses considerable problems of definition. Unfortunately, if the scheme is to be transparent, which is everybody's intention, the term will have to be defined. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that individuals who have personal British links, training or background should receive extra points.
I also share the view that Britain should look to further its own commercial self-interest. However, business between Hong Kong and Britain is conducted by both British and Hong Kong firms. Surely the test should be whether the individual applicant is involved in activities which further
1860
British commercial interests rather than whether his employer for the time being—and people change jobs —happens to have his head office in London or in Hong Kong or, indeed, elsewhere. That is a question to which we shall return in Committee. However, I thought it right to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the question is not as simple as it at first sight appears.
Having mentioned that point of detail on the scheme, I wish to make it clear that I support the Bill without reservation and thank the Government for its introduction. The Bill will not of itself assure the future of Hong Kong, but it is a valuable lifeline at a difficult moment.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords there are two separate, albeit intertwined, themes to the Bill which are neatly encapsulated in its title. The first is British nationality and the second is Hong Kong. I shall deal briefly with the second.
Many, perhaps most, noble Lords who have spoken today have a profound and thorough knowledge of Hong Kong and often of China. In contrast, although I know South-East Asia to some extent —a region of which I am very fond —I have not yet had the privilege of visiting what is known as East Asia, which includes Hong Kong and China. Therefore, although like most concerned people I take a considerable interest in the colony and sympathise with the worries and concerns of its inhabitants, I feel one must leave it to the experts on the region to determine not only the technicalities of the Bill —for example, the merits of the points system —but above all, how essential the Bill is for the future wellbeing of Hong Kong. The verdict of the experts in this House and in another place seems to be that it is essential.
Like many people, I have niggling doubts as to whether the Foreign Office has over the years secured the best possible future for the people of Hong Kong. Whether justified or not, those doubts are now irrelevant. We must deal with the situation as it exists today and not as it might have been.
That brings me to the second aspect of the Bill, the British nationality aspect. which could be subtitled. "the immigration aspect". I must take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; it is quite wrong to base policy on the confident assumption that the Bill is merely an insurance policy on which a claim is never likely to be made. One hopes that a claim never will have to be made, but for the purposes of the Bill one must envisage a worst case scenario, to use current jargon.
That being the case, it would be unfortunate if the impression were given that this House was in any way adopting the élitist attitude which characterised the British establishment, including the Churches, in the 1950s and early 1960s. Those who lived in quiet and salubrious areas and were therefore unaffected by the mass immigration of the time—apart from benefiting from the cheap labour that it initially provided —were utterly contemptuous of the fears and worries of ordinary

1861
people living in poorer districts who were naturally adversely affected by such a massive wave of immigration.
We should therefore show ourselves to be more than willing to consider carefully the arguments of those whose instincts arc to oppose the Bill on the grounds that it would permit further immigration into this country. The main arguments against the Bill advanced by those in another place, who almost certainly represented a larger constituency in the country than the votes in the Division Lists would suggest, were, first, that the Bill breaks Conservative election pledges. That is undoubtedly true. However, the British electorate is sophisticated and cynical enough to recognise that all governments of all persuasions and in all countries—one only needs to look at President Bush earlier this week —break election pledges from time to time. Therefore although it is certainly embarrassing for the Conservatives, given that their opposition to immigration played a considerable part in their election victories in 1979 and 1983, that in itself is not a very powerful argument against the Bill.
The second argument is that we are a very overcrowded country, Again, that is perfectly true. Mr. Julian Critchley, writing not in his capacity as honourable Member for Aldershot but as a semi-professional journalist, asked sarcastically whether Mr. Norman Tebbit had visited Hadrian's Wall recently, after Mr. Tebbit had spoken about the country being overcrowded. More to the point, one could ask Mr. Critchley whether he had recently tried to drive even one-tenth of the way round the M.25. I have always maintained that the quality of life in this country would be immeasureably better if we had the population density of France or the United States. Having said that, I would guess that the maximum numbers that might be involved as a result of the Bill, if the worst came to the worst, would be just about manageable. In any case, this time round, it would be the turn of the indigenous middle class rather than the indigenous working class to bear the brunt, mainly in the form of higher house prices for first-time buyers.
The third argument advanced in another place was the dual loyalty argument. The "cricket spectators" analogy may not have been an ideal choice. I have noticed over the years that Mr. Tebbit frequently spoils a reasonable case —even an excellent case —by choosing the wrong analogy or metaphor, thereby shooting himself in the foot. Nonetheless, the problems that can often stem from a conflict of loyalties are real problems and the subject should never be swept under the carpet.
More often than not there is no problem. With hindsight, it is obvious that it was totally unecessary to intern so many Italians during World War II. Most of them were entirely apolitical and very few indeed had any enthusiasm for Signor Mussolini. The Japanese-Americans, who were situated mainly in California and elsewhere on the west coast, were treated even worse; again, totally without justification, since theirs were loyal, hard-working and law-abiding communities. However, a considerable number of Germans living outside
1862
Germany in the 1930s were infected with enthusiasm for the Nazi movement; in particular those living in Latin America. Those people caused considerable problems for the allies. And although the great bulk of Irish people living here have no time whatever for the IRA, there are still in Britain enough passive supporters of that terrorist organisation to provide an adequate number of safe houses for IRA cells operating in this country.
However, having said that, I cannot believe that there would be any problem at all with the, literally, select group of people with whom this Bill is concerned. Therefore, while it is certainly always legitimate to raise the question of possible dual loyalty, I am sure that it does not apply in this case. Consequently, of the three main objections, only that relating to potential overcrowding has much force; and then only if—heaven forbid —things should go very wrong in Hong Hong.
Neither side in this debate—I do not mean today's debate but the overall debate on this topic —has morality totally on its side. If the gamble which this Bill represents comes off, obviously all parties will benefit enormously. However, once you have ensured that those categories most at risk in Hong Kong are given passports—that is, senior police officers, civil servants, and so on —there is nothing particularly moral about granting a passport to A but denying one to B, or granting a passport to Y but not to Z. In other words, the issues faced are essentially pragmatic ones.
There is one final factor to bear in mind. We know that, if a referendum had been held after World War II on whether mass immigration into Britain should be allowed, the answer would have been a resounding "no". However, if a referendum were to be held today on whether a strictly limited number of educated and respectable Hong Kong citizens should be allowed in, I very much suspect that there would be a majority in favour—perhaps not a large majority, but a majority all the same. It is important to bear that in mind. It can only be a guess, of course, but I should be prepared to place good money on it.
With that in mind, and because the gamble that this Bill represents seems worth taking in view of the potentially enormous prizes to be gained by all parties if everything works out well, I have come round to accepting that the Bill is indeed worthy of support.
2.40 p.m.
Viscount Mackintosh of Halifax: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on his maiden speech. We look forward to many further contributions from him in the House.
Having recently returned after spending two years in Hong Kong, I believe that the Bill must be regarded as an expression of the Government's responsibility to the citizens of Hong Kong. That it should be put forward as a measure to stem what has been known as the brain drain or to curtail substantial emigration from Hong Kong is misguided. From my experience of living and working among those who perceive themselves to be

1863
the most vulnerable following the handover to China in 1997 —the professional and managerial classes —I maintain that, a British passport or not, those people will seek to ensure a stable future for their families now, outside Hong Kong.
In a particularly Chinese way, that would require resettlement in a country where those people could establish a permanent lifestyle for successive generations. I consider those feelings to be widespread among the professional and managerial classes. Such people will not remain in Hong Kong unless they are absolutely certain that they will be able to live and work there in the long term, even if they have an escape route —a British passport. Why would they wish to spend six or seven years building up a career in Hong Kong, establishing a family environment and putting their children through the Hong Kong educational system if they do not have confidence that they will be able to remain in Hong Kong after 1997? The entrepreneurs and the owners of businesses will remain in Hong Kong, but the Bill is not aimed at them. It is aimed at the managerial and professional people who are the most likely to leave now.
The level of confidence required to keep those people in Hong Kong is not enjoyed by many at the moment. It is certainly not possible for the British Government to influence that confidence through this Bill alone. That confidence is primarily a matter for the Peking Government and, if the British Government wish to increase confidence in Hong Kong, they must use all their influence to impress upon the Peking Government the need to restore confidence in Hong Kong.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in his introductory speech, the Joint Declaration is viewed from this country as a diplomatic triumph. Looked at from the crowded streets of Hong Kong, it is regarded rather differently at the current time. When viewed as an acknowledgement of the Government's responsibility to the citizens of Hong Kong, I add my support to the extension of British citizenship to heads of households in Hong Kong. I shall therefore support the Bill, despite my lack of confidence that it will achieve the increase in confidence in Hong Kong that the Government desire.
An aspect of the Bill with which I am unhappy involves the treatment of spouses. It has been confirmed in recent correspondence from the Home Office that ordinarily the Hong Kong Chinese spouse of a British citizen may qualify for right of abode in the UK only after three years' residence in the UK, living together as husband and wife. I was pleased to hear my right honourable friend reiterate the statement by the Home Secretary in another place on 19th April this year that the Hong Kong Chinese spouse of a British citizen would have no difficulty living here during the lifetime of that British citizen or, given certain provisos, in widowhood.
If that is the case, why is it necessary to grant further passports to the spouses of citizens to be created under the Bill? How can those two categories —the Hong Kong Chinese spouse of an existing British citizen and the Hong Kong Chinese
1864
wife of a British citizen to be created under the Bill —be treated differently? My right honourable friend has gone some way to alleviating the fears and concerns of the British expatriate but he has not gone quite far enough.
I strongly recommend that this anomaly be corrected and that automatic citizenship be granted to this category of Hong Kong citizen —the spouse of an expatriate British citizen —who, only since 1981, has been required to spend three years resident with his or her spouse in the United Kingdom before achieving the right of abode here. The total number affected is only around 300. If the Government reiterate that this measure is unnecessary because they will have no difficulty in living here, surely the granting of citizenship to the spouses of the 50,000 new citizens to be created under the Bill is also unnecessary.
I hope that my right honourable friend feels able to assure the House that there will be no discrepancy in the treatment of Hong Kong Chinese spouses of any British citizen. If the Bill is to remain in its present form, then, to be totally consistent, the spouses of British expatriates should be given automatic independent right of abode in the United Kingdom. If it is felt that the three-year rule of living together should remain, this should at least be satisfied by living together for three years in Hong Kong, not just in the United Kingdom. That would not disadvantage the Hong Kong Chinese spouse of a present British citizen to the same undeniably iniquitous extent as at present.
Although I do not share my right honourable friend's belief in the influence that the Bill will have on confidence in Hong Kong, I nevertheless feel that it is a step in the right direction. I give it my support.
2.46 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to say at the outset —and on this point I believe there will be agreement on all sides of the House —that it was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Holme. It was a speech of outstanding quality. It is normal, I know, on occasions such as this to say that one hopes that one will soon have the privilege of hearing the noble Lord again. There is no need to worry about that consideration. Given the rather modest numbers of these Benches, the noble Lord will have many opportunities in the relatively near future to participate in our debates.
Both my noble friends Lord Holme and Lord Bonham-Carter explained our general attitude to the Bill. I do not therefore propose to traverse that ground again. Some of the issues will be dealt with in detail in Committee. I want to deal with one or two matters which cause us continuing concern.
The first and central purpose of the Bill, as was said by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, is to establish an insurance policy. The Government have argued that the possession of a British passport by the 50,000 and their families and their right of abode in Britain will promote stability in Hong Kong. We agree with that. Without the Bill, the consequences in Hong Kong could be extremely serious. The

1865
Government go on to say that they believe that unless the situation concerning our relations with China deteriorates very severely, most of the 50,000 and their families will want to remain in Hong Kong. That point was made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
He said —and I agree with him —that the overwhelming majority do not want to come to the United Kingdom in any event. That is right. Quite apart from any other consideration, they would in most cases experience an extremely substantial reduction in their standard of living. This seems to be common ground. But if that is so, why do we limit the guarantees to the 50,000 families? If significantly more people received the guarantee, surely that would promote greater stability in Hong Kong. The guarantee in the Bill is far too limited. Notwithstanding that we have reached a late stage in the passage of the Bill, I hope that the Government will consider the matter once again.
Let us move on to examine for a moment the alternative situation; namely, that all does not go well in Hong Kong. Let us suppose, for example, that our relations with China for one reason or another deteriorate rapidly, that there are further disturbances in China with further massacres of dissidents, and that there is a total collapse of confidence in Hong Kong. Is it suggested that in such a situation we should simply walk away from our responsibilities in the territory? In my view, that would be quite unthinkable. However, what is more relevant is the fact that it is clear that that is not the position of the Government.
On 14th June last year Sir Geoffrey Howe told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons:
In the … last resort situation of events overwhelming the people of Hong Kong, then in those circumstances it is, I think inescapable that the United Kingdom with its special responsibility for the territory would be the country to which they would look for treatment as refugees and we would have to try and discharge that responsibility with the help of others".
I welcome that statement unreservedly —that is, so far as it goes. However, it would only grant refugee status to those wanting to leave Hong Kong in the situation that I have described. There would then, presumably, have to be a desperate hunt for countries which were prepared to take large numbers of refugees at the last possible moment. Unless the Government of the United Kingdom offered to take substantial numbers of these people, there would be little prospect of our colleagues in the European Community, or the Governments of Australia and the United States, agreeing to do the same.
Surely all that points in one direction: the wisdom, now, of substantially increasing the numbers of people being guaranteed the right to enter the United Kingdom. If all goes well, the likelihood is that remarkably few people would come to the United Kingdom in any event. However, if all went seriously wrong in Hong Kong, we would be compelled to accept large numbers of refugees in an exceptionally limited time frame. Therefore, by conferring on substantially larger numbers of Hong Kong residents the right of abode in the United Kingdom we would
1866
both increase confidence in Hong Kong and apply a considerable constraint on the Chinese Government.
I think we should also remember that the Chinese economy is in an exceptionally poor condition. That is one of the reasons—indeed, almost certainly the only reason —why they have agreed to allow Professor Fang to leave his state of imprisonment in the United States Embassy in Peking. The Chinese authorities dislike Professor Fang just as much as Mr. Brezhnev hated Sakharov. He has been allowed to leave the United States Embassy because of the heavy and continuing congressional pressure to maintain sanctions against China. Under pressure from the United States, the World Bank still refuses to resume full lending facilities to China. As a result, many commercial banks are hesitant about offering their money.
In the current condition of its economy, Hong Kong is of immense economic significance to China. I believe that is one ground for optimism about its conduct over the next seven years. By being forced to recognise that if all went disastrously wrong in Hong Kong there would be a wholesale exodus, carrying with it the most serious implications for their economy, the Chinese Government are likely to adopt more civilized conduct.
However, quite apart from the considerations to which I have referred, there are two other matters that I believe it is right to mention. First, the Portuguese Government have chosen to behave very differently from our Government. They are giving the people of Macao the automatic right of Portuguese citizenship in the relatively near future. Moreover, as a result of their membership of the Community, these people will be entitled to live in the United Kingdom. In the same way, if we had adopted a more generous policy, many of those who acquire the right to enter the United Kingdom would settle in other Community countries as well as our own.
I turn now to the second issue to which I wish to refer, and one touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg; that is, Clause 1(5) which is a thoroughly nasty provision. Under it, no one will be able to apply for judicial review against a decision to refuse him right of abode in the United Kingdom. It protects the position of the Governor and that of the Secretary of State. It seems to me extraordinary, when for the past 20 or 30 years we have been devoting, rightly, a great deal of attention to increasing the rights of individuals, that such a provision should appear in legislation. The only circumstances in which one will succeed with such an application before the courts is if, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, pointed out, there is a breach of natural justice, irrational conduct and so on.
Is it seriously maintained that in such circumstances a private citizen in Hong Kong should not have the right to make such an application before a judge? I hope that we shall have some explanation from the Minister at the end of our debate. He cannot argue that that would confer an automatic right of appeal. It would do nothing of the sort. There has to be an application before a judge for judicial review on such a matter. It would be allowed

1867
in the most limited circumstances only where a prima facie case of some significance could be put before him.
The Government must justify that provision or they will have a fairly difficult time in Committee on that issue. That provision is part of the price we pay as a result of the absence of a written constitution in this country. In the almost inconceivable circumstances of such a provision appearing in a Bill before the United States Congress, or the Bundestag in West Germany, if enacted, it would be struck down by the courts. In this country we have no such protection. A Minister, armed with an adequate majority in the other place, can merely introduce such a provision in a Bill and prevent the courts from examining his conduct and, in this case, that of the Governor of the colony. It is wholly objectionable and should be removed from the Bill.
We have made our position on the Bill entirely clear. We support wholeheartedly its objectives. We doubt whether they will be achieved unless there are significant improvements in the number of people who will potentially be allowed to enter the country.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Lord mentioned that he hoped to make clear his party's position on the Bill. In his disclosure vis-a-vis the Portuguese relationship with Macao, he did not explain whether his party was in favour of granting full British citizenship with a right of abode to the entire 6 million population of Hong Kong.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, first, the number is not 6 million; it is 3 million. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter made his position on that matter clear at the outset of the debate, and so if the noble Lord reads Hansard he will have the good fortune of reading our clearly defined position.
There remains —I believe that this is conceded on all sides —a dangerous lack of confidence in Hong Kong. Last year —the Minister confirmed this point in his speech —there was record emigration, and the numbers of emigrants have increased this year. In many businesses the turnover of staff is between 25 and 30 per cent. Twenty-five per cent. of all doctors left Hong Kong last year, and 20 per cent. of psychiatric nurses are planning to do the same. There is a clear danger that unless it is corrected, this haemorrhage of talent could inflict the most grievous damage to Hong Kong long before 1997. The Government have still got the capacity to take remedial action in this Bill and significantly to improve it. I very much hope that they will not fail to do so.
3 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the speeches of all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have amply demonstrated the great concern of this House for the people of Hong Kong. The Bill acutely affects the lives of people in Britain's remaining colony. It is little wonder that the subject has aroused so much passion both inside and outside Parliament.
1868
When presenting the Bill, the noble Earl went to great lengths to explain the urgent need for its implementation. He explained that its significance lay not in its effect regarding emigration per se, but in the influence that it will have on the maintenance of confidence in Hong Kong. That has been stressed by nearly all speakers in the debate, though some have expressed doubt as to whether that will be so. In view of the nature of the subject many noble Lords had to speak in hypothetical terms. That is what has made it difficult to put a clear and concrete view about the Bill.
The Minister also went to some lengths to describe the present worrying situation in the colony. In his very interesting and rewarding maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, painted a very stark picture of the position, as he saw it, in the colony now. He described the large number of people who are leaving every week or who anticipate leaving during the rest of the year. It will be the highest number so far. The right reverend Primate was able to give precise figures which he acquired during a visit to Hong Kong recently.
It has been made clear that these figures concern the key people and they are going mainly to Canada or Australia. These are the people who are targeted by this Bill. It is true that they are needed to keep Hong Kong running smoothly as a major world financial centre. If they stay and give the necessary confidence, other Hong Kong people would be happier to remain.
The points system devised by the Government to select 50,000 heads of families is designed to accomplish that response. Everybody has agreed that that is the purpose of the points system. However, approval for that system has not been unanimous. One should see it more as a way of providing certain measures to deal with a particular situation that is occurring at the present time. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, said in his very interesting speech, it is a means of tiding Hong Kong over during a very difficult interim period prior to 1997.
However, that should not be confused with justice. I do not think anyone would agree that there is anything fair about a points system. I believe the Minister said that this measure was not an emigration but a nationality matter. I do not believe it is that either. It is about expediency. It is a damage-control measure. It is a particular solution for a current problem. It is in that light that we should be looking at the Bill before us today.
Many noble Lords have given their views on what the Hong Kong people want and whether they want this measure. It has been said that it represents an almost arbitrary selection of a small minority of people and that others with the same qualifications will be excluded. This may cause anger and resentment and set families against each other. It may also have embittering consequences within the Hong Kong Civil Service, where there is already great unrest. That may well be so. The result will depend very much on how the screening process will be conducted.
On that point I wish to ask the Minister whether additional officials will be allocated to assist in that

1869
procedure. If that is the case, I wish to ask him about the recommendation which appeared in the Select Committee report:
"Our concern is that any increase in the manpower required to register British citizens in Hong Kong does not necessitate any reduction in staff tackling the backlog of naturalisation applications. We recommend accordingly that any additional staff required. for the registration of British citizens in Hong Kong should not lead to a reduction in the numbers processing naturalisation applications within the IND".
I should be grateful to have two answers from the Minister on that point.
I am swayed by the argument that the Hong Kong people view a points system rather differently from the way we do. The most reverend Primate made the point that he feels that the Hong Kong people are more pragmatic. I believe they are already familiar with the points system as applied by Canada and Australia. I have even heard it said that, whereas in London a taxi driver is well able to tell one the names of every player in the World Cup, in Hong Kong a taxi driver is equally well equipped to reel off the points system of every country in the world. I can imagine that that is the case.
It would be correct to conclude that Hong Kong people view this Bill more in the light of an insurance policy than a means to come and live in England. I am told this is borne out by a poll that showed that only 5 per cent. of the 50,000 householders in question would leave Hong Kong and take up residence in Britain. However, all noble Lords who have spoken agree that that would depend entirely on what happens in China. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, spoke on that matter cogently, as did the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who stressed the need for great mutual understanding between the British Government and the Chinese.
I end my remarks by referring to a few of the points that have been made by noble Lords who disagree about the scheme before us. We have decided that it is necessary to have a scheme, but there is disagreement on whether the scheme we have is the right one. However, before I comment on the scheme, I wish to reply to two questions that have been asked me during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked me whether the Labour Party would withdraw any nationality conferred on a citizen of Hong Kong under this Bill if it were in government. I am happy to give the noble Lord an assurance that a Labour Government would not withdraw any British nationality that was given to any Hong Kong citizen in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred to the ethnic minorities, which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, was also concerned about. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, asked me what position the Labour Party would take. I shall quote what my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said in a debate in May 1986 regarding the right of abode in the United Kingdom of members of Hong Kong's ethnic minorities. It was in that debate that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, gave a commitment which has been referred to many times during this debate. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn, in winding up that debate, said that he thought that the noble Lord,
1870
Lord Glenarthur, had given a strong undertaking. He added:
"I must of course, confirm that my party, in government, would honour that obligation, but I must also say to the House that from my conversations with my right honourable friends in another place I have the authority to say that we would consider going further and taking other steps as well". —[official Report, 16/5/86; col. 1438.]
I hope that that will set the anxieties of the noble Lord at rest.
My noble friend Lord Irvine made a very important point when he clarified what is meant by a judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also asked for clarification of that point. It is very important that in replying the Minister should let us know exactly what people's rights will be with regard to a judicial review.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he disagreed with my noble friend Lord Mishcon. However, when it came to the point I noticed that in fact he agreed with quite a lot of what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wanted a wider insurance policy, as he called it. My noble friend Lord Mishcon had already put forward ways of providing that wider insurance policy by building up democratic structures that he felt would give the people of Hong Kong the confidence to remain there.
Several speakers, including the most reverend Primate, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and the noble Viscount Lord Mackintosh, were worried about the spouses of British subjects in Hong Kong. There is an anomaly which was clearly set out by the noble Viscount. Again we shall be grateful to the Minister if he will clarify that point.
There was agreement among many noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and the noble Lord, Lord Eden, about the numbers involved. They thought that 50,000 was a very limited number. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, pointed out that 50,000 heads of families made 225,000 people. I was also confused on that point. Even if that figure is correct I wonder how it was arrived at.
I fear that some speakers have mentioned what they described as the electoral hypocrisy exercised by the Opposition Front Bench in another place. It would be rather difficult under the circumstances pertaining in your Lordships' House to accuse the Opposition Benches in this House of the same thing. Electoral hypocrisy is something that we cannot indulge in.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, quoted the example —which has often been mentioned —of Portugal giving citizenship to all the people of Macao. However, he did not mention the number of people involved. I believe that it is 7,000. It is therefore rather difficult to compare the position of Portugal with the position of Britain, which would have to take 3·25 million people.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clarify the proportions involved? I believe that the number of people in Macao vis-à-vis the population of Portugal is approximately the same as the number of people in Hong Kong in relation to the population of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot clarify that point because I do not have the figures. Even if I had, I do not believe that I would be persuaded by the noble Lord's argument. I believe that the situation is entirely different and in absorbing 3·25 million people we should not show responsibility toward the people of this country.
We hope that this Bill will advance the interests of the people of Hong Kong. There is absolutely no doubt about it. We do not oppose the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said. Nevertheless, I believe that the scheme comes a little too late. I should like to ask the Minister why we have waited such a long time for this Bill. I should have thought that if it were about restoring confidence it would have been very much more useful had it come before Parliament a great deal earlier.
I also believe that the Bill offers too little to have the anchoring and confidence-restoring effects claimed for it by the Government. In reality only the Joint Declaration, zealously honoured by China and Britain in spirit and the letter can do that. Let us hope that that is exactly what will happen. We do not oppose this Second Reading.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as might have been expected we have had an interesting and, if I may say so, a most informed debate. A number of noble Lords who have great knowledge of Hong Kong have spoken. So have others who have great knowledge of business and those who have particular knowledge of the political issues involved.
Just before she sat down the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why this has not been done before. She will know perfectly well that there was a great deal of difficulty in deciding the right course to take over what is a difficult and a unique position. A great deal of consideration had to be given to it both within the Government and between the British Government and Hong Kong. I believe that it has been useful to have this Bill before us today.
I should like to congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on his maiden speech. It was a remarkable maiden speech, delivered in a way which was extremely agreeable and which depicted the great confidence which I am sure is characteristic of the noble Lord. I was delighted to hear from his noble friend Lord Harris that we shall be hearing from him many times in the future —not because of the paucity of the number of noble Lords on those Benches but simply because of the quality of his own personal intervention. He said that he hoped that he would look like a little girl full of modesty and decorum. He did not look much like a little girl. I do not suppose that he has too much modesty but he has a great deal of decorum, and modesty was there in the right amount. He succeeded in making his speech without making it controversial too. When he said that this was a sorry little Bill, I thought that he was sailing a bit close to the wind but then I realised that it was merely an explanation of his own views.
His speech was in contrast with the only contribution that I found to be unfortunate
1872
—namely, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, which if I may say so, was disgraceful. I think that he lowered the tone of the whole debate as well as bringing little credit to himself or indeed any comfort to those on his own side of the House. To suggest that this Bill is a raiding party to obtain rich pickings from Hong Kong because of the lack of education given by the Tory Government over the past 10 years and to say that much of the money will land up in the back pockets of Conservative politicians was a shocking intervention. I think that, when the noble Lord reflects upon his words, he will feel that it was a speech that he would prefer not to have made.
One of the greatest problems that we have had —it has been mentioned all round the Chamber —is that many people would have liked this Bill to go further. That is wholly understandable. I think that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York felt that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, my noble friends Lord Glenarthur, Lord Eden and Lord Mackintosh and the noble Lords, Lord Tanlaw and Lord Harris of Greenwich. I believe that everyone felt that, if this was going to work, what a pity that it could not go even further.
It is an odd concept to try to give people British citizenship in order that they should not come to Britain but stay where they are. It may not be a wholly appropriate simile, but over the past 40 years we have retained a most astonishing weapon, the nuclear weapon, for the very good reason that it should never be used. Oddly enough, that has worked. A similar principle applies here. One can apply a system of protection which can be formidable in the hope that it will not be used.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York put the problem in perspective when he said that by 1997, according to his delegation, one tenth of Hong Kong's population, one fifth of the Christians, and a quarter of the church workers, will have gone. Those were rather frightening statistics. I was even more alarmed at the prospect of the church workers heading the field of those leaving. I am sure that that was only an unfortunate part of the statistical analysis. The most reverend Primate was quite right when he said that what one needs is confidence now. My noble friend Lord Sharp said that that was so, that we needed confidence now, and that the Bill would help. That is the purpose of the Bill, I hope that it will help.
However, the most reverend Primate posed the fascinating question, repeated by the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter, and Lord Harris of Greenwich: if the principle of the Bill works, why do we not give it to more people because then we shall build a bigger foundation and even fewer people will come? I do not know that such a hypothesis could be borne out by fact. However, we have to try to decide on a figure which, if the worst came to the worst, this country could honour. We feel that 50,000 is the right figure, plus the families.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was right when he said that one cannot give a cheque which one cannot honour. I do not believe that this guarantee

1873
will have to be honoured to its totality. The whole purpose of giving such protection is to give confidence to Hong Kong and to enable those people to remain there.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that one needs to give security and confidence now and to democratise the organisations before 1997. I believe that he said that he would not have introduced the Bill. I agree with him that we ought to give as much confidence as possible and encourage that confidence to be given. But that alone will not enable people to remain in Hong Kong. As we have seen already people have been going to other countries. As the most reverend Primate has pointed out, people are leaving at a great rate. The whole point of the measure is to try to stem the flow.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made one curious intervention, if I may say so. He asked: why can not give more people this guarantee because we are giving a pledge to 250 million people in the European Community? I thought that that was a most astonishing suggestion. It is grossly flawed for two reasons. Any measure to do with the European Community is two-way traffic. People can come to this country; we can go to other countries. When one gives a passport in the European Community one does not give citizenship. Those who use European passports retain their own citizenship. Therefore, when the noble Lord tries to confuse the European passport with the provisions under this Bill he is trying to confuse Piccadilly Circus with Tuesday afternoon. The two are not the same.
We have had a number of interventions. The noble Lords, Lord Derwent, and Lord MacLehose of Beoch —who is a most distinguished ex-Governor of Hong Kong—and the noble Lords, Lord Sharp and Lord Tanlaw, and my noble friend Lord Geddes are involved in business in Hong Kong. They understand the difficulties. We also heard from my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who as a Minister of State was involved with the problems of Hong Kong in particular. I found encouraging the fact that a majority of your Lordships recognise that there is a problem and that however one tries to solve it, it will never be done in a way that is totally equitable to everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords referred to the figure of 50,000 and asked whether it could be increased. If, against all expectations, those selected decided to come here, that is a figure that we believe we could honour.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed anxiety about the operation of the points structure. He said that maximum points would be awarded to those between the age of 30 and 40 years and he found that personally disturbing. I am sure that if the noble Lord were applying he would score well on experience, education, training, proficiency in English and public community service, even though he might be knocked out on grounds of age. The purpose of making that provision is that the highest rate of emigration is within that age group.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene, especially after such a flattering remark. I was trying to make a serious point, that while the young are favoured on points, people are also awarded points for length of experience. That struck me as being paradoxical and I do not know whether it similarly strikes the Minister.
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, it does not. It strikes me that there are two or three separate qualifications for which points are given. In certain instances experience is valuable; in other instances youth is valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also expressed anxiety about the necessity to have a certain knowledge of English. We have made it clear that those without a formal qualification in English will be able to take a specially arranged simple test. Therefore, there will be no discrimination against them. I see no reason why it should be assumed that such a test cannot be applied fairly. It will be designed to be as objective as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, insinuated that the scheme may have been weighted towards civil servants. Hong Kong needs public servants to ensure successful and effective administration until 1997. The number in the private sector far outweighs the number in the public service. The points system is designed to enable an appropriate number of key public servants to qualify. However, the final result is intended to produce a significant majority of key people from the private sector.
My noble friend Lord Sharp asked why there is no approved secondment scheme as was proposed in a Statement last December by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Our initial thinking included a proposal for a secondment scheme. It would have allowed those participating to secure British citizenship by a mixture of residence here and in Hong Kong. British firms would have been in a good position to make use of such an arrangement for their staff. However, as we continued to think about the matter other ways of helping British firms emerged. We have proposed that points should be awarded for British links, including service with a British firm. Therefore, the Bill does not contain provisions for a secondment scheme. We shall take account of any views expressed about the assistance that we might give to British firms in Hong Kong and the most appropriate way of doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and my noble friends Lord Sharp and Lord Derwent asked why those working for British firms should not be given a bigger advantage in the points system. We have proposed that up to 35 points should be available for service with British firms. In a highly competitive selection scheme that would give people who work for British companies a significant advantage over those who are otherwise equally qualified. The purpose of the scheme is to benefit Hong Kong as a whole, and it would be against Hong Kong's interests to give employees of British companies such an advantage that they secured places ahead of others who might be better qualified. As my noble friend

1875
said, other countries are focusing their help on their companies' employees. However, our responsibilities go further.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the difficulty about choosing between equally qualified candidates. One of the main purposes of the special circumstances point is to reduce the bunching of equally qualified candidates around the pass mark for each occupational group within the general allocation and disciplined services sections. The governor would approve the use of relevant criteria against which a candidate scores to be recalculated where the bunching occurred. Adjustments will be made in that way until the bunching is resolved or reduced to a minimum.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I intervene again because this is important to the people of Hong Kong. I asked a rather different question. The Bill fixes the figure at 50,000 heads of households —50,001 would be ultra vires the Bill. I asked what would happen when a number of people —and there must be a number —all finish with exactly the same points. How is the choice to be made? Is it right that it will be made by the governor pulling names from a hat? How else can that issue be decided?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer which I was giving to the noble Lord is not wholly irrelevant because a points system will be allocated until bunching is prevented. If a position is reached where many people have the same points, then a judgment will have to be made. I understand that that judgment is likely to be made by the governor but, if I am wrong on that, I shall let the noble Lord know.
My noble friend Lord Geddes said that the Joint Declaration does not offer the non-ethnic Chinese any worthwhile assurances. I do not believe that that is so. It guarantees them both the right of abode in Hong Kong and a freedom of movement as well as the protection of all existing laws in Hong Kong. There is no risk that they will become stateless when their British dependent territory citizenship status lapses. Not only they but their children and their grandchildren born after 1997 will qualify for British overseas citizenship if they otherwise become stateless. Also, we have given assurances that their case for admission will be considered sympathetically if they come under severe pressure to leave. Therefore, the Government believe that their position is reasonably safeguarded.
My noble friend Lord Geddes asked how the pressure to leave would be defined. One cannot be specific on matters like pressure. Each case will be different. The general approach is to consider each one on its individual merits and circumstances. As regards how each person will get out of Hong Kong if they are under pressure to leave, I assume that there will be no difficulty in them doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, gave the example of the ration book and felt that it was rather bad luck on some who did not even get a ration book. Under the Bill or scheme there is no specific
1876
provision but it is open to any member of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities to apply for selection provided that he or she can meet the eligibility criteria set out in the Bill and can work in one of the eligible occupation categories.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax and another noble Lord were concerned about spouses. That is an important point. They felt that wives of British citizens were being treated differently from wives who had become British citizens. If an existing British citizen marries a non-British spouse, that spouse does not automatically receive British citizenship. He or she would have to spend a qualifying period of residence in the United Kingdom and the spouse will normally be able to accompany the British citizen here for that purpose.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable key personnel and their families to stay in Hong Kong. It was therefore decided that the spouses of those key personnel should also be registered as British citizens provided that they have the Governor's recommendation. That should happen as a matter of course provided there are no doubts regarding the character of the spouse. The point of the Bill is that it gives key personnel and their families the right to enter this country. It would perhaps have been considered unfair if we had given special rights to the heads of families but different rights to their spouses and children.
The noble Lords, Lord MacLehose and Lord Tanlaw, referred to non-ethnic Chinese minorities and were concerned about their position. They will be able to apply under the scheme. There is no special provision for them in the Bill because their position is safeguarded by both the Joint Declaration, which provides for their right of abode in Hong Kong and their freedom of travel, and the provision of British overseas citizen status for any who will be stateless down to the second generation born after 1997.
The noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to judicial review. That is an important point. Clause 15(5), which excludes appeal in judicial review, relates only to discretionary decisions. It is similar to a provision in the British Naionality Act 1981; in other words, there is no review on the decision but there is the ability to have judicial review of the methods by which that decision was arrived at. If the courts were to review discretionary decisions they would only be able to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of State or the Governor, on whom under the Bill Parliament has placed responsibility.
There is nothing in the Bill which seeks to exclude the proper role of the courts in reviewing matters other than discretionary decisions; for example, procedural impropriety, mistakes of fact and so forth. It is not necessary, and indeed would be wrong, for the Bill to spell out the rights of courts to examine matters other than discretionary decisions. If we did so we might raise doubts about their powers in relation to other legislation which does not contain such provisions.

1877
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the problems which exist in Macao. Approximately 100,000 people in Macao hold Portuguese nationality. That means that around 20 per cent. of the population of Macao have the right to Portuguese citizenship. The reasons for that are largely historical and not because of Hong Kong's present position. It is therefore wrong to draw comparisons between what the Portuguese people in Macao have had historically as of right and what we are giving to the people in Hong Kong.
The Portuguese are not operating an assurance scheme, nor are they granting Portuguese nationality to everyone in Macao. After 1992 Macao residents with Portuguese nationality will have the same freedom of movement within the European Community as all other European nationals. That is not new.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to staffing. The staff who process the registration recommendations will be based in Hong Kong and are expected to number around seven. It is not decided from where they will be drawn. The noble Baroness referred to the recommendation of the Select Committee. We are studying its recommendations and will reach a decision later.
Britain's task now is to help Hong Kong weather the difficult transitional period which lies ahead. We have undertaken to do so as part of our obligation under the agreement with China. I believe that the Bill has an important part to play. It will provide a core of Hong Kong's key personnel with an assurance that if the worst comes to the worst they are entitled to come to this country. However, the indications and our thoughts are that they will prefer to stay, as the most reverend Primate said, in Hong Kong, which is a place they like and which they do not necessarily wish to leave. The Bill will give them the confidence to remain in that territory. I believe that it will also send out a good and useful signal to the people of Hong Kong as a whole of Britain's continued commitment to their welfare.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1990
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations are intended to fulfil the obligation on the Government to implement the Second EC Council Directive on Non-Life Insurance, often referred to as the non-life services directive. The adoption of this directive in 1988 represented a significant and welcome step forward in the completion of the single European market in the field of insurance and noble Lords may find it helpful if I set it in its context.
1878
Freedom of establishment for insurance in the European Community was achieved in the 1970s. Freedom of services, however—freedom, that is, to write contracts across frontiers —has been long delayed and it is only since the judgments of the European Court of Justice in December 1986 that progress has been made. The present directive reflects those judgments in respect of non-life insurance and will create a genuinely liberal regime for the writing of so-called large risks —meaning for the most part risks where the policyholder is a company above a certain size. Member states may continue to impose greater restrictions on risks other than large risks, and most other than the United Kingdom probably will.
I do not propose to describe all the draft regulations in detail, though I shall of course be happy to explain any of them more fully if that would assist the House. I will, however, refer briefly to some of their more important aspects. First, the regulations amend the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and subsidiary regulations by establishing a regulatory framework within which EC companies may cover risks situated in the UK. Equally, UK companies (which includes branches of EC companies established in the UK) may cover risks situated in other member states. As I have already explained, the directive provides for two regimes—a liberal one for large risks, which is mandatory, and a much more restrictive one for so-called mass risks, which is optional.
The UK has always been an open market for non-life insurance and we do not propose to take up the option of the mass risks regime. EC companies wishing to do services business here will therefore be subject to the large risks regime irrespective of the nature of the contract. Such a company will be required to submit certain documents to the Secretary of State, including certificates issued by its own supervisory authorities regarding its solvency and the classes of business which it is authorised to carry on. It will be entitled to carry on business from the date on which those documents are received.
Certain new requirements are imposed on the company as regards the information about itself which it must provide to prospective and actual policyholders. I stress that although EC companies covering all types of risks will have access to the UK market under the large risks regime, one additional requirement in the case of personal and other mass risks policyholders is that before any contract is entered into they must be informed where the insurance company is established. That is a new safeguard that does not apply at the present time. The regulations also include provisions to reflect the rules on matching contained in Annex 1 to the directive.
The regulations also contain new rules governing law applicable to a non-life insurance contracts and they empower the Secretary of State to take action against a United Kingdom company which is in breach of the law of another member state.
The Government attach a high priority to the completion of the single market in insurance and we regard it as important that all member states should

1879
implement the present directive promptly and effectively so that the Community's insurance industries can take full advantage of the new opportunities that it offers. The present regulations are designed to fulfil our own obligations in that respect: I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection to the regulations and see their good sense in fulfilling our obligations as members of the EC. They are much too full of technical detail for me to comment on them sensibly, but, having read them and listened to the Minister, I certainly understand that we seek to enhance the reputation of the British insurance industry, which is great, well-appreciated worldwide and very important to this country. I also detected strands in the Minister's speech which are designed to ensure that the security of the investor and the probity of the companies involved in the insurance market are given close attention.
I am sure that the Minister does not need me to tell him that from time to time sensitive matters come into the public domain and that it is clear that the best kept regulations in the world fail to stop fraud or recklessness with regard to insurance. There are two main areas of insurance with which we are concerned. I am always conscious of the individual —the person who insures genuinely rather than invests, not to make a profit, but simply to ensure that in his or her old age or at a given moment in time, he or she will have money available to help them. Under the Financial Services Act, the Government have, to their credit, created a network which by and large works well. However, as even the best regulated regime and fully staffed departments of state can get into trouble, anything that the regulations do to ensure that such problems are avoided is to be welcomed.
One of the tags that I learned when I studied commercial law concerned bona fides —being of the utmost good faith. That is one of the bedrocks of the commercial insurance world. Millions of people put their money and their future, with the utmost good faith, into the hands of insurance companies. We on this side of the House are sensitive about the Government's responsibilities to ensure that that faith is not misplaced. Having listened to the Minister, I certainly see no objection to the regulations.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for the welcome that he has given to the regulations. Insurance regulations in the United Kingdom have a good record. Supervision has been effective. At the same time the industry has enjoyed the freedom to innovate and compete. That has given us a competitive industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
3.50 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This small Bill which has been brought to us from another place carries an impressive Title, but is quite modest in content. However, its provisions will be helpful to electors, officials and party workers and so far as I am aware, it has the advantage of being non-political and non-controversial.
The Bill's provisions are aimed at entitling an elector who moves house during the currency of an electoral register to apply to be treated as an absent voter at all elections throughout the outstanding period of that register. The precise arrangements for voting in parliamentary elections are not always a matter of prime interest to Members of your Lordships' House. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who I see is to speak, can claim a greater expertise than most of us possess.
It will be recalled that to be on the electoral register for a particular district or a London borough council electors must be resident on a qualifying date —10th October in Great Britain and, I think I am right in saying, 15th September in Northern Ireland. The register comes into force on 16th February following, and remains in force for a year. People who move house during that period have to wait for the next register before they can vote in their new constituency.
The consolidating Representation of the People Act 1983 entitled an elector who moved to another area to apply for an absent vote for parliamentary elections during the currency of one electoral register. A similar right was conferred by regulation for European parliamentary elections. But those relevant provisions of the 1983 Act were repealed by the Representation of the People Act 1985. The provisions which that Act substituted for absent voting have proved in practice to fall a little way short of the ideal.
Their effect is that people who move house and want to vote by post or by proxy now have to make a separate application at each election —parliamentary, European or, in Great Britain, local government. This has caused a good deal of confusion and extra work, particularly when a parliamentary election and a local election came pretty close together and separate applications had to be made for each —as a good many people discovered with some surprise. The political parties and the election registration staff have suffered and, above all, so have the voters.
Section 6(2) of the 1985 Act sets out a list of persons eligible for an absent vote. Paragraph (a) of Clause 1 of the Bill adds to that list any person who is no longer resident at his qualifying address or at any other address in the same area.
Paragraph (b) of the clause, borrowing language in the main originally used in the 1983 Act, sets out the only circumstances in which two addresses are to be regarded as being in the same area. To complete the story, and in view of the reference in the Long Title to an indefinite period, under Section 6(4)(b)

1881
of the 1985 Act, which will bite on this addition to that section, the entitlement to an absent vote would cease on the coming into force of the next register.
The practical effect is that someone who moves house and goes to live outside the area covered by the register which includes his name may now make one comprehensive application to be treated as an absent voter during the currency of the register for all parliamentary elections —that is, European parliamentary elections under regulations which will come in due course; and, in Great Britain, local government elections.
The Bill's Explanatory Memorandum states that the Bill,
"has no implications for public expenditure or public service manpower".
I think that that is quite right. Any possible change, one way or the other, would be minimal. The Bill could not come into force until some procedural points have been dealt with by minor amendments to the Representation of the People Regulations and then there are also the regulations to be made dealing with European elections. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that these should not take long.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill should be helpful to voters, to officials and to party workers alike. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is Friday and the hour is fairly late. I shall, therefore, be extremely brief in what I have to say. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, made an overwhelming case for this small and useful Bill. It has all-party support. We on these Benches are very much in favour of it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The Bill is eminently sensible and its drafting has been based upon experience. Indeed, we have all had experience of these matters when knocking on people's doors. Because they have registered once, some people assume that that is all they need to do. There is great irritation when you point out to them that they are not in fact registered and that they should have repeated the exercise.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having explained so lucidly what is a simple step but one which, without any party animus, whatever, is bound to be good for democracy and the convenience of electors. We on this side of the House certainly support the Bill.
3.57 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the two noble Lords who have just spoken have, if I may say so, set a precedent of brevity which I hope that they will continue to
1882
use. However, if I do not follow them to quite such a degree, I hope that they will forgive me.
The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing this Bill and for having explained its purpose. It is, indeed, a rare pleasure for a government spokesman to have the opportunity to speak on a Bill which, so far as I am aware —certainly so far—has proved to be completely uncontroversial and which has the full support of all the major political parties. Its provisions have been welcomed by the various local authority associations representing those dealing with electoral matters and I am sure that it will also be welcomed by all those electors who move house, and who, therefore, need an absent vote in their old district or constituency until the next annual register is compiled.
The Bill simplifies matters both for the elector and for the registration officer. It replaces the need for a person who has moved house to apply for an absent vote on each occasion during the year in which the register is in force and when there is an election. The Bill enables a single application to be made which will cover all elections.
We had originally hoped to address this matter in the Representation of the People Act which came before your Lordships' House last year. However, it did not prove possible to do so because it was necessary to keep that Act —which dealt, as your Lordships will doubtless recall, with new arrangements for overseas electors —as short and as straightforward as possible. We are therefore very glad that this early opportunity has arisen to make proper arrangements for electors who move house.
The financial and manpower implications of this Bill are not easy to assess precisely. The Bill will remove the need for a person who moves house to make a separate application for an absent vote at each election which arises before he or she may qualify to be included on the register at their new address. If, therefore, there were to be more than one election before the register in question expired, there might well be a saving on costs and manpower. But I doubt whether that would add up to a significant amount.
Of course, some people may well apply as a matter of course under the new provision in order to ensure that they get an absent vote even if no election is in prospect and even if, in the event, none actually ever takes place. I think, therefore, that it is highly unlikely that this provision will place any extra burden on local authorities; and the local authority associations agree with our view on this aspect of the matter.
The provisions of this Bill will come into force under an order made by the Secretary of State following Royal Assent. They cannot take effect until, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, rightly said, some small amendments are made to the Representation of the People Regulations. They are not likely to take much time. It will also be necessary to amend the European parliamentary regulations so as to apply the Bill's provisions to European parliamentary elections, and that will be done as soon as possible. The Bill will simplify the

1883
system and reduce the bureaucratic burden on a large number of electors who move house each year. I can only think that that will be to the advantage of everyone. I congratulate Lord Allen of Abbeydale on the Bill and wish him success.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I do not believe there is anything for me to say except to thank noble Lords who have spoken for welcoming the Bill which I believe will be useful. I merely ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

British Railways (No. 3) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at one minute past four o'clock.

  MILITARY EXPENDITURE: NATIONAL COMPARISONS
  MILITARY EXPENDITURE: NATIONAL COMPARISONS
  READING: INTERNATIONAL SURVEY
  READING: INTERNATIONAL SURVEY