Sitting of 9 December 1992

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

    RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Urban Programme
    Mr. Mudie:To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the local authority associations on the future of the urban programme.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I have received a formal representation from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and several letters from individual local authorities and others.
    Mr. Mudie: Is the Minister aware of the widespread distress caused in Leeds and throughout the country by the cancellation of the urban programme? Is he further aware that, by that act, he has removed the one hope for the unemployed, the elderly and the very poorest in our inner cities? Does the Minister understand and accept the worrying possible consequences of compelling our inner cities to face next summer with no cash, no initiatives and no hope for our long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not looked at the statement. Some £176 million will be spent on the urban programme and capital partnerships for the inner cities next year. The hon. Gentleman may like to remember that, taking city challenge and the urban programme together, we plan to spend £408 million next year, compared with only £319 million this year. Of course I want to see action in the inner cities. We have many projects and plans, and with a Conservative Government we are going to do it.
    Mr. Marlow: Would it not be better to spend large sums of our own money in our own deprived urban areas, rather than splashing out vast largesse into the Community cohesion fund?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are priority needs in our inner cities. That is why we are budgeting as I have described for next year—to produce
    828
    better hope and life and more jobs in those inner-city areas. Of course Her Majesty's Government intend to drive a hard bargain with our Community partners. We believe in getting value for money wherever public money is spent and that must be true at Community level as well as here at home.
    Ms. Lynne: How can the Government claim to be creating employment prospects while at the same time cutting urban programme grants to areas such as Rochdale?
    Mr. Redwood: As I have explained, we have a number of programmes for the inner cities, many of which create jobs and job opportunities. Instead of whingeing and complaining, the Opposition should start taking an interest in city challenge, capital partnership and all the other schemes that are producing life and hope in the inner cities and generating many jobs and job opportunities.
    Mr. Vaz: That is yet another example of ministerial complacency about a fundamental shift of Government policy which will directly affect the lives of thousands of people who live and work in inner-city areas. Now that the Minister has refused to commit the Government to support round three of city challenge, does not the cancellation of the urban programme put the Government's entire urban regeneration programme into a state of crisis? If the 57 urban programme authorities fail to raise the £500 million that he has predicted they will raise because of the change in the capital receipt regulations, will the Minister come back to the House personally, announce that he will give back to those councils the money that he proposes to take away, and apologise to the people whose lives and jobs and projects will be ruined by this appalling decision?
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
    The £500 million that we hoped that local government will raise by way of extra receipts represents additional money for the inner cities. Instead of complaining, the hon. Gentleman should be encouraging his friends on Labour councils in those urban programme areas to ensure that they get the receipts money on time and spend it on good projects for their areas. That is what I want, and I hope that that is what the Opposition want. That is the way to make progress in the inner cities.

    Rough Sleepers (Central London)
    Mr. John Marshall:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will be renewing the rough sleepers initiative in central London.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): We shall be making resources of £86 million available over three years from April 1993 to build on the achievements of the rough sleepers initiative which, since June 1990, has reduced the number of people sleeping rough in central London by more than a half.
    Mr. Marshall: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on securing additional finance from the Treasury in the autumn statement? Does he agree that the problem of rough sleepers in London would be eased if inner London councils would let their unlet council houses and collect their uncollected rents?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. It is an affront to the many people in London who are homeless or in temporary accommodation that large numbers of local authority flats continue to be unlet after more than a year. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the Government's priorities, in a difficult public expenditure round, in finding the necessary resources to continue further the progress that we have been making in respect of rough sleeping in central London.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister not feel ashamed and embarrassed to see so many people sleeping on the streets of London when he is on his way to the opera? I do not suppose embarrassment is something that comes easily to Conservative Members because they could not care a damn about people who are sleeping rough. Does the Minister recognise that the problem of homelessness is not confined to inner London? How many outer-London severe weather shelters are being provided? Why has the Minister's Department turned down proposals for such shelters in Croydon, Camden and Newham?
    Sir George Young: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might find it possible to congratulate the voluntary organisations in central London on their work in the past two years to reduce the number of people sleeping rough, but, instead, he saw fit to deliver the rather ungrateful rant that we have just heard. The Government focus resources on central London because that is where there is the largest concentration of rough sleepers. Roughly half the rough sleepers in this country are in central London, and that is where we are targeting our resources. Outside inner London, we are funding voluntary organisations to make progress. However, we would expect local authorities such as that of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to recognise that they also have a responsibility and should make provision of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Salvation Army on its superb work with its soup run to rough sleepers? Does he also agree that the Salvation Army and others minister to a number of rough sleepers who generally refuse to come into accommodation available for them?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the sterling work of many voluntary organisations and charities in London which deliver help and shelter to those sleeping rough. There are a number of rough sleepers who have been approached by resettlement workers and outreach workers and have been offered accommodation in hostels with access to move-on accommodation, but have turned that accommodation down. It is a challenge for everyone who wants to see a reduction in rough sleeping in central London if there are people who turn down offers that are made to them.

    Contaminated Land
    Mr. Hardy:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that land that was contaminated and which has now been cleansed is brought into uses that provide economic or environmental advantage.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): The Government are keen to encourage all contaminated land to be brought into productive use and I am looking carefully at my proposals on section 143 registers to ensure that we deal with the conflicting concerns voiced by local authorities, developers, lenders, valuers, insurers and, indeed, Members of this House.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister appreciate that considerable areas of derelict and contaminated land in my constituency and elsewhere have been cleared and reclaimed at considerable cost to public funds? However, while the Government maintain the contaminated land register as it is and insist on including the reclaimed land on that register, there will be no economic advantage as a result of the investment that has been made. Does the Minister accept that the needs of the areas concerned are such that the Government should be pursuing policies of assurance and indemnification to allow some hope and advantage to be brought to those very necessitous districts?
    Mr. Maclean: Because of that concern voiced by the hon. Gentleman and by many others, I made a special visit to the black country recently to see the problem on the ground, and that point of view was impressed on me in no uncertain terms. I therefore intend to look at other areas of the country where there may be similar worries about the potential blighting effect if the registers went ahead. It is important for me to talk to the insurers and lenders, because we would not be able to bring the contaminated land back into use without their support. My intention is to deal with land that is actively contaminated and needs to be cleaned up, and not to cause unnecessary blight.
    Mr. Thomason: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement today that he is reconsidering the permanent nature of the contaminated land register. Does he agree that if encouragement is not given to the development of derelict and contaminated land in the inner cities, greater pressure will be created in the countryside and on green belt land? Does he agree that that pressure should be avoided wherever possible by inner-city developments?
    Mr. Maclean: That is yet another consideration as to why we must get our proposals on contaminated land right. As Minister for the Environment and Countryside, I should find it wrong if we created unnecessary pressures on the countryside because developers, for whatever reasons, were frightened away from using potentially useful land in inner cities. That is a matter to which we shall give careful consideration.
    Ms. Short: When shall we know the outcome of the review? It is the strong view of the Confederation of British Industry in the west midlands that the present system acts as a barrier to the treatment of contaminated land and, therefore, leads to pressure on the green belt and great swathes of dirty land being left behind. Do we not need a graded register, incentives to treat, and then a way of coming off the register so that the land will be brought into use? The present system is a barrier to treatment and reuse.
    Mr. Maclean: There are incentives to treat, and a variety of schemes funded by Government and local government to bring land back into productive use. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has identified one of the flaws in existing legislation—that no

    831
    matter what work is done to clean land up and make it suitable for a purpose, it will nevertheless be completely unable to come off the register. We are addressing that matter.
    As the economy comes out of recession, I do not want this problem lingering for much longer. We want to deal with the matter and settle the concerns as soon as possible in the new year.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Alan W. Williams:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the adoption of the principle of subisidiarity in environmental policy in the European Community is expected to have on United Kingdom standards.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): The principle of subsidiarity requires that decisions should not be taken at Community level unless effective action cannot be taken by member states. It does not affect standards. We shall continue to maintain high environmental standards in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister agree that there are two types of environmental problem? One type, involving the atmosphere and the seas around our coasts, is international in its impact. The other involves problems such as the quality of drinking water, contaminated land and recycling, which are much more localised in their impact. Is there not a danger that, under the cloak of subsidiarity, a cynical Government, such as we have at present, could use that loophole to mouth platitudes at international conferences about environmental regulations while in their own back yard it will be business as usual as the dirty man of Europe?
    Mr. Howard: I have some sympathy for the distinction with which the hon. Gentleman commenced his question, but the inference that he drew from it was entirely misplaced. I suspect that the difference between us is that I have greater faith in the institutions of this country to take the necessary decisions to safeguard our environment.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that some of the steps being taken at European level are wholly inconsistent with the principles of subsidiarity as advocated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams)? For example, draft directives on landfill do not seem to take into account the fact that the position in the United Kingdom is entirely different from that in continental Europe. Would it not be better if the European Community stuck to international environmental issues such as air pollution rather than getting into the detail of things which are better dealt with a member state level?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has cited one example, and there are a number of other examples which one should scrutinise carefully in the light of the definition of subsidiarity to which I referred earlier. That is something that Her Majesty's Government will do.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the then Minister for Housing and Planning, on introducing the legislation in 1988 to give effect to the directive on environmental impact and assessment, said that it was "thoroughly commendable", can the Secretary of State give a cast-iron
    832
    guarantee that neither at Edinburgh this week nor later will there be any change in the full commitment to and implementation of the present environmental impact directive so that woods such as Oxleas wood which is 8,000 years old are entirely protected and not at risk from a weakening of European Community-inspired legislation?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should know by now that the assumption on which his question was based is wholly mistaken. The dispute over Oxleas wood has nothing whatever to do with Britain's acceptance of the environmental impact assessment directive. It is a purely technical dispute about the moment at which that directive came into force. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman and his friends stopped misleading people about the attitude of Britain to that directive.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In view of the highly egregious and probably unjusticiable nature of the phrase "subsidiarity", even as defined by my right hon. and learned Friend, will he simply make sure that British environmental standards are at least as good as any of those set on the continent?
    Mr. Howard: I believe that our standards are already at least as high as those on the continent. Any objective comparative assessment would support that view. We shall continue to ensure that environmental standards in Britain are of the highest.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State agree that, especially with the impact of the single market coming in on 1 January, it is vitally important that environmental standards across Europe are kept consistent and high? How does he explain the internal Government documents recently leaked to the European Parliament which show that the Government seem intent on blocking Community initiatives on landfill, water quality and, perhaps most importantly, the environmental impact assessment of Government policy making? Is it not the case that the Government seem determined to become the bargain basement of Europe environmentally as well as socially?
    Mr. Howard: No, that is not true. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends spent less time scavenging around for leaked documents, they would be less familiar with basements, bargain or otherwise. We should have high environmental standards in Britain. Where it is appropriate for the Community to take action, it is right that environmental standards across the Community should be high and consistent. However, there are many matters on which it is perfectly legitimate to leave nation states to take the necessary decisions. We shall seek to implement that approach wherever it is appropriate to do so.

    Peak Park Planning Board (Elections)
    Mr. Knox:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.
    Mr. Maclean: We have no plans to do so. The national parks review panel did not recommend direct elections to the park authorities as it felt that the long-term national interest would not be served. The Government intend 'to legislate to create independent authorities for all the national parks. We also intend to take steps to ensure that local interests are properly represented on them.
    Mr. Knox: How does my hon. Friend justify the fact that the Peak national park is one of only two areas in the country where planning decisions are taken by people who are not directly elected? How does he justify that? Does he think that it is fair to the people who live in the Peak national park?
    Mr. Maclean: Councillors on national park bodies were elected in their districts or county councils. Although they were not directly elected to the national park authorities, they were elected in their council areas. The national parks review panel considered the matter and decided that it was not appropriate to follow the model of direct elections, and I am inclined to agree.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the Peak park planning board is just one of many quangos which run various aspects of our lives at no small cost to the taxpayer? Often the people who serve on such quangos do so for no other reason than that they are in the favour of Tory Ministers. Is it not time we moved Britain into the 21st century by the election of a democratic tier of regional government which could encompass organisations such as the Peak park planning board and bring them under the control of the people whom they are supposed to represent?
    Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to acknowledge the large amount of expenditure on our national parks to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. In the past five years it has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms; that is recognition of the Government's commitment to some of the finest areas of this country. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but I have met many chairmen of national parks and members of their boards. Many have long and distinguished records as Labour councillors in Labour areas. Our boards are a mixture of members from all political parties and from none. On balance, they are doing a pretty good job and the hon. Gentleman does a disservice by suggesting that there is party-political favour in such appointments.

    Caravan Sites Act 1968
    Mr. Clifton-Brown:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the responses to his Department's consultation paper concerning reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Department has received more than 1,200 responses to the consultation paper from local authorities, gipsies, land-owning interests and other organisations and individuals. We are considering the responses carefully, and will make an announcement in due course about implementing the reforms.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will recognise that that problem causes misery in many rural areas and I urge him to take whatever action is necessary before there is a repeat of last summer's activities. May I also urge him to communicate to his colleagues in the Home Office the need for reform of the Public Order Acts to relieve the problem?
    Mr. Baldry: We intend to take action, and we shall proceed as soon as we have had the opportunity to consider responses to the consultation paper. It might be
    834
    helpful to make it clear to hon. Members that our proposals for reforming the Caravan Sites Act 1968 do not cover public order problems caused by large congregations of new age travellers. Home Office Ministers, in consultation with other Government Departments and the police, are urgently considering what practical measures—including changes to the civil and criminal law—can be taken to deal with mass trespass.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Government have spent more than £50 million since 1979 on the development of caravan sites. Will the Minister explain how he intends the quality of those sites to be maintained and how spaces will be made available for travellers? Can he explain how the legislation being contemplated can assist with homelessness, as it seems to me that it threatens to make the situation a good deal worse?
    Mr. Baldry: I think that the hon. Gentleman should allow the gipsy organisations to speak for themselves. In response to our proposal the National Gypsy Council has said:
    "Having been in the forefront of official site provision ever since the implementation of the 1968 Act, and as originators and the strongest advocators of the concept of private site initiatives for gypsies, the views of the National Gypsy Council are well documented. In our opinion private sites are beneficial to all concerned, to gypsies because they offer them the security of a legal home and a base from which they can send their children to school, to local authorities and central Government who are spared the expense of developing and managing sites and to local settled communities by the reduction in the number of unauthorised encampments. Furthermore, private gypsy sites are in locations where the gypsies who will live on them want to be. They suffer none of the problems due to incompatibility which are sometimes found on local authority sites and once a private site has become established, the families on it quickly prove themselves to be good neighbours."
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for his proposed measures to deal with illegal camping? Is he also aware that some of my constituents have strong reservations about aspects of his consultation paper, which appear to enable local authorities to evade their responsibilities? Will he do all that he can to protect my constituents in North Curry and Wrantage, who may be disadvantaged if neighbouring local authorities are able to evade their responsibilities in relation to gipsy encampments?
    Mr. Baldry: We are determined that no local authority shall evade its responsibilities under this or any future legislation.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Department is not working to a rigid timetable in considering responses to the consultation, as it is important to consider the complexities of such a broad issue before the Government respond and take action?
    Mr. Baldry: We will onsider all the responses very carefully, but there is no doubt that the 1968 legislation, which was brought in for the best possible reasons, has failed the travellers and local communities. It is time for a reform and we are determined to bring that about.

    Rent-a-room Scheme
    Mr. Hendry:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of additional units of accommodation that will be brought into use by the rent-a-room scheme.
    Sir George Young: It is not possible to give a precise figure. The nature of lodging makes it difficult to measure accurately the size of the sector. We hope, however, that the new scheme will encourage an increase in the number of people who take in lodgers.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that building societies and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which have traditionally discouraged people from taking in lodgers, not only welcome the scheme but are actively encouraging people to take advantage of it? Does that not show what a useful and valuable addition it is to the range of policies already in place for tackling homelessness?
    Sir George Young: I very much welcome the new approach by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and other lenders. We must make the best possible use of our housing stock. The scheme also provides an additional source of income for those who own those properties, which may be useful at the present time.
    Mr. Soley: Having reduced the private rented sector from 14 per cent. of the total housing stock in 1979 to 7 per cent. now, is it not time that the Goverment came up with a proper private rented sector instead of subsidising private landlords, whether in mortgaged properties or otherwise, via housing benefit, and even subsidising some who are in prison because they have harassed their tenants? Would it not be better to have a tax-break system in exchange for the registration of landlords? We could then strike off those who were bad landlords, instead of using public money to subsidise them.
    Sir George Young: Few people have more responsibility for the decline of the private rented sector than the Labour party, whose wholly hostile approach to the private landlord was responsible for many leaving that sector. It is interesting to note the hon. Gentleman's U-turn; he is now suggesting a tax break for private landlords, after the Labour party has spent decades harassing them. That is real progress.

    Basel Convention
    Mr. Anthony Coombs:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the United Kingdom to ratify the Basel convention.
    Mr. Maclean: Ratification of the Basel convention is dependent, first, on adoption of the European Community waste shipments regulation by the Council of Ministers and, secondly, on the Council's decision on the timing of ratification.
    Mr. Coombs: Although my hon. Friend rightly says that this is a matter mainly of European competence, does he agree that early ratification is particularly important because the Basel convention confirms the self-sufficiency principle, which means that developed countries should not transport their hazardous waste unnecessarily? That
    836
    convention gives developed countries the opportunity to receive waste from developing countries that do not have the recycling facilities necessary for hazardous waste.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. Ratification is a matter for the EC and we shall want to see that achieved as early as possible.
    We are committed to the self-sufficiency principle and I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for successfully negotiating that when he took over the presidency of the European Council. We shall now develop our own national plans to ensure that developed countries that are large enough to deal with their own waste do not transport it here.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware that millions of people in this country are still deeply concerned about our continuing role as the toxic waste-bin of Europe? Does the Minister accept that, despite all the fine words about the Luxembourg agreement and the Basel convention, no unequivocal statement has ever been made by any Minister to the effect that the Government will use those powers to ban the import of toxic waste from developed countries? No committed timetable has ever been set for achieving such a ban. Will the Minister make that unequivocal commitment and present that timetable this afternoon?
    Mr. Maclean: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is very muddled. First, he should look to see which countries are the toxic waste-bins—it is certainly not this one. We have just negotiated a regulation in the EC which will, for the first time, give this country the power to turn off the tap of waste coming from developed countries for disposal here. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the convention, he will see that it does permit developing countries, that do not have the facilities to deal with their waste safely to send it to developed countries where it can be treated properly. That is a sensible part of the convention.
    Mr. Rowe: Is it not the height of irony that the Labour party makes such a song and dance about importing toxic waste for treatment from developing countries that do not have the technology to deal with it safely, when it spends most of the rest of the time posing as the party most concerned about environmental damage being done around the world?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. All developed countries agreed that it was morally right that they should not instantly cut off the ability of poor developing countries to have their waste properly treated in developed countries. We shall certainly not take waste from other developed countries that can deal with it themselves. Waste for final disposal should be dealt with in developed countries. That is what we have negotiated and we are implementing national plans to ensure that it is put into place when the directive is ratified.

    Local Authority Staff (Pay)
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the application of the policy on pay increases in 1992–93 for staff working in local authorities.
    Mr. Howard: I expect local authorities to play a full part in achieving pay restraint to maximise the potential

    837
    for investment and employment. The chairmen of the local authority associations have undertaken to do their very best to settle within the zero to 1·5 per cent. range.
    Mr. Mandelson: How can the Secretary of State justify a policy that asks some of the lowest-paid in our community to pay the price for the Government's economic incompetence? When hon. Members are lobbied this afternoon by representatives of the National and Local Government Officers Association, they will know that many public sector employees—in the health service and local government—already receive wages below the Council of Europe's decency pay threshold. If belts must be tightened, would not it be fairer for the well-off to feel the pinch, rather than making those who are already low paid experience the pain from the Government's policies?
    Mr. Howard: The fairest approach is for those in work to accept some sacrifice to maximise the opportunities to create jobs for those out of work. The fact that the Opposition fail to recognise and support that objective shows the extent to which they are out of touch. That objective behind our policy has won the support of the chairmen of the local authority associations to whom I referred.
    Mr. Alexander: As public sector pay in local authorities accounts for 70 per cent. of the cost of local authorities, if people working in local government accept the public sector norms which the rest of us have accepted, does it not follow that the settlement announced only the other day means that local authorities should not need to raise their charges by any more than they received from the community charge last year?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a measure of the dimension of what can be achieved through that policy that every 1 per cent. on public sector pay costs an additional £800 million a year. If local authorities sought those savings by manpower reductions, 50,000 jobs would be put at risk.
    Mr. Henderson: Given that the Secretary of State has already acknowledged that pay accounts for 70 per cent. of local authority costs, does he accept the assessment by the stockbrokers, Robert Fleming, that the suggested Government spending total for next year is less than 1 per cent. above what councils expect to spend this financial year? If that is the case and if inflation is only 3 per cent. in the next financial year, does he accept that, given his financial regime, capping and the 1·5 per cent. pay limit which he will impose on local authorities, the inevitable result will be cuts in vital services? If so, will he now withdraw his statement to the House on 26 November that no service cuts in local authorities are needed?
    Mr. Howard: As long as the Labour party and its Front-Bench team continue to base their assertions on comparisons that do not compare like with like, they demonstrate how unfit they are to be taken seriously. We have to compare the total standard spending for next year with the total standard spending for this year, not compare the total standard spending with budgets. When the hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he has understood that, we shall take his arguments seriously.

    Social Housing
    Mr. Wells: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has for the amount of social housing which will be provided from public funds over the next three years.
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Government will be investing in social housing over the next three years.
    Mr. Howard: Our manifesto promised that 153,000 houses would be provided over the three years beginning April 1992; we now estimate that the Housing Corporation should be able to provide some 170,000 additional homes in that period.
    Mr. Wells: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and his team on obtaining that additional money for social housing. Will he find innovative financial methods to use the additional money from taxpayers to lever the private sector into social housing? That would enable us to extend social housing provision to constituencies such as mine where there are poor people who are equally in need of housing for themselves and their families.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has made an important point. The autumn statement was based on the assumption that we should be able to increase the private sector contribution to social housing. We intend to do that with the additional money made available for the remainder of this financial year; taking into account the private sector contribution, we shall provide nearly £1 billion worth of additional social housing in the period to the end of the current financial year.
    Mr. Moss: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the fact that the autumn statement commits us to exceeding our manifesto pledge for the provision of social housing. However, does he agree that the needs of rural regions such as my constituency of Cambridgeshire, North-East are just as pressing as those of urban districts? Does he accept the need to encourage private sector houses to be made available in the rented sector at affordable rents?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that his constituency and other rural districts will benefit from the package announced with the autumn statement. He is right to emphasise the importance of encouraging the revival of the private rented sector, which the policies of the Labour party have done so much to damage for such a long time.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State tell the House of the estimates of housing need in Britain that have been produced by a series of organisations, including the Institute of Housing, and, most recently, estimates produced for the Housing Corporation by Mark Kleinman and Christine Whitehead? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that they all make it clear that at least 100,000 new homes are needed each year for rent? Therefore, on the basis of the Secretary of State's projections this afternoon, there will be a serious shortfall over the next three years, which will mean that the problems of homelessness will get worse. When will the Government recognise that their programme is inadequate?
    Mr. Howard: Estimates of need vary widely. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in making a constructive contribution to the resolution of such problems, I invite him to devote a little more of his time and attention to the solutions to the problems—solutions such as those that I mentioned earlier.
    Ms. Abbott: The Minister will be aware of the excellent work done by the housing associations in the London borough of Hackney, particularly through inner-city challenge. Does the Minister accept that the Government's stated policy—that housing associations alone should provide all new housing—cannot hope to meet the extent of the need in inner-city districts? If the Government insist that all new houses must be provided by housing associations, they will consign thousands of my constitutents to homelessness and poor housing conditions. If the Government are serious about housing the people of the inner cities, they must give councils the money to do the job.
    Mr. Howard: I am glad that the hon. Lady has recognised the important contribution made by housing associations. It is not only housing associations that provide new houses. If the hon Lady pays careful attention to the state of council housing in her constituency—I am sure that she does—she will see the importance of getting away from solutions that were tried in the past, and failed, and of tackling the problems in a way that fully meets contemporary needs.
    Mrs. Currie: Is it not right that social housing can be provided not just out of public funds? I draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the imaginative schemes brought together by South Derbyshire district council, Toyota and a housing association, in which accommodation which has been built for the Toyota executives and trainers who will be here on a short-term basis will revert to public housing for low-cost rent when Toyota has finished with it.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had not heard of that scheme, but I shall study it with great interest. I know that on this, as on so many other issues, my hon. Friend invites the rest of the country to look to South Derbyshire for a lead. I shall see to what extent we can follow that lead in this area.
    Mr. Battle: No doubt, next week the Secretary of State will tell local authorities that their housing investment programmes and their permission to borrow to provide will have to be cut. Is it not true that estimates do not vary—that there is consensus among everyone, except the Government, on the need for more than 300,000 more homes to rent in the next three years? However, Government measures, including the recent initiatives for housing associations, are now revealed as providing well below that target. When will the Secretary of State and the Government get to grips with the scale of the housing and homelessness crisis and ensure that there are enough homes to rent? That is what people desperately need.
    Mr. Howard: When will the Labour party learn that it is no use one Front-Bench spokesman after another getting up and asking for, more and more money to be spent while the shadow Treasury team wanders around the country trying to persuade everyone of how responsible the Labour party is? When the hon. Gentleman has talked
    840
    to the shadow Chief Secretary and received his sanction to call for additional public expenditure, we shall listen to what he says with some seriousness—not before.

    National Parks (Privatisation)
    . Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to privatise the national parks.
    Mr. Maclean: We have no plans to do so. National parks are living, working landscapes and most of the land within them is already in private ownership. The continued success of the parks depends on the delicate balance between nature conservation, rural development and sensitive regulation for the benefit of all who live, work in and enjoy the parks.
    Mr. Steen: I am delighted with that answer. The last thing I should like my hon. Friend to do is to privatise the national parks. Is he aware, however, that the Duchy of Cornwall is treating the Dartmoor national park committee with contempt and in a cavalier manner? When the Ministry of Defence sought permission to spend £30,000 of taxpayers' money to fill up the holes in a road which it said it would allow to fall into benign neglect. the Duchy of Cornwall and the MOD, in a covert operation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), did not consult the national park committee at all. Will the Secretary of State see to it that the Duchy of Cornwall behaves more openly in future?
    Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to hear of that local difficulty. I had understood that the Ministry of Defence notified the national park that it was about to fill in some potholes. In questions about such matters as access to national parks there is always the potential for conflicts of interest which are best resolved at local level.
    I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ministry of Defence on the way in which it protects wildlife. Some of the best wildlife sites in this country are protected on Ministry of Defence property, and I recommend that colleagues read the booklet "Sanctuary" which shows the tremendous work that the MOD does. If there are brickbats to be thrown, one should throw them, but I also want to applaud the MOD when it does things right—such as nature conservation work.
    Mr. Trimble: I greatly welcome the Minister's statement this afternoon about maintaining the national parks and providing independent authorities for them. Given his strong support for national parks, will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ask him why there has never been a national park in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Maclean: That is a territory into which I dare not tread. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I merely say that on my visits to Northern Ireland I considered the entire country to be a wonderful national park.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: The Okehampton loop road, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred, is valued by my constituents. Will my hon. Friend consider direct elections to national park

    841
    committees that include people in the surrounding parishes as well as outside experts? Only by that method v, ill national parks be properly cared for by people who really know about them.
    Mr. Maclean: There are requirements that a proportion of the members serving on national park committees should come from within the boundaries of the parks. When district and county councils appoint their elected members to the park boards and authorities, I hope that they pay special attention to the need to have local people serving on those bodies. We are committed to new national parks legislation. We are working on it and my hon. Friend may wish to consider the issue of representation when that legislation is considered by the House.

    Council Tax
    . Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department's present estimate for the average council tax for a two-adult household in a band D equivalent property differs from the estimate published by his Department in 1991.
    Mr. Redwood: The Department of the Environment has never forecast the likely levels of council tax.
    Miss Lestor: May I remind the Minister that estimates were made? In 1991, the estimate for band D was £400. In the rate support instruction, it was £494. The Financial Times today suggests that another £50 will be added to that. Is the Minister aware of the consternation that this is causing to lower and middle-income groups, who are worried about the way in which valuations have been determined? Is he aware also that many people think that he should return to the drawing board and start all over again?
    Mr. Redwood: Local government does not want us to start again. It wants the local tax that we propose and it wants an independent source of revenue; we are getting co-operation from many Labour and Liberal councils as a result—it is a pity that we are not getting co-operation from Opposition Members as well. The figures shown for illustration in 1991–92 were based on spending in 1991–92. Opposition Members seem to have forgotten—or they do not want to know—that local councils are spending more this year than last and that they will be spending more next year than this. We are not intending to forecast. There is independence and freedom within local government to decide what to spend and how much tax to impose within the limits set out by my right hon. and learned Friend. We intend to wait and see what councils do and to praise those that set modest taxes and provide high-quality services.
    Sir Anthony Durant: When my hon. Friend is considering capping, will he cap Labour-controlled Reading borough council, which seems to have set out to produce the highest rate of council tax of any area in Berkshire?
    Mr. Redwood: I can reassure my hon. Friend. If any council exceeds the criteria limits that have been set out following proper consultation, it is likely that my right hon. and learned Friend will have to cap it to defend the
    842
    interests of local taxpayers and to make sure that that council, like most local authorities, delivers good services at a sensible price.
    Mr. Barnes: Why is there only a threefold difference in payment between the low band of the council tax and the high band? Is that the nearest that the Government could get to the poll tax while pretending that there was a difference between the two taxes?
    Mr. Redwood: No. The council tax is a new tax with new principles. It has a strong property element, which Opposition Members have always said they wanted. There must be some limits on the amounts that those in more expensive houses have to pay. That issue was debated in Parliament and our proposals were approved by Parliament.

    Housing Corporation
    . Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses will be provided by the Housing Corporation over the next three years.
    Mr. Baldry: We estimate that as a consequence of the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, housing associations will now be able to provide about 170,000 new homes for social renting by April 1995 with funding from the Housing Corporation—considerably more than the 153,000 promised in our manifesto.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £630 million of Government money that is going towards housing associations and local government will release about 20,000 social dwellings? Is that not a magnificent effort by the Government, remembering that the Conservative party always adheres to its manifesto promises, whereas the Labour party fails to do so repeatedly?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The housing associations are working well on the programme. The first family to be helped has already moved out of the caravan in which they were living to a home made available through the programme. The housing associations have no doubt that they will be able to deliver 20,000 homes to families in housing need by March next year.
    Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that his appalling gall is matched only by the Government's appalling housing record, which has dropped by 50 per cent. since 1979? Does he agree that millions of housing bricks being stockpiled and 500,000 construction workers on the dole are not just economic madness but immoral?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon.Gentleman clearly was not present when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his autumn statement. Had he been, he would have heard about the additional funding for the Housing Corporation and the fact that local authorities such as his will be allowed to spend 100 per cent. of the capital receipts that they raise between now and December next year. We estimate that that will bring well over £1 million into new housing investment. I should have thought that he and other Labour Members would be cheering that announcement, not cat-calling.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the additional money being provided for the Housing Corporation and the ability to spend capital receipts will be welcomed by local authorities in the south-east, where there is a particular need for social housing? Conditions are difficult and the Housing Corporation and housing associations have difficulty meeting local demand. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the schemes are put into practice without disadvantaging local authorities in my area?
    Mr. Baldry: We have a determination and an ambition that every family in this country should have a decent home in which to live. Different areas have different housing challenges, but we are determined to meet the housing challenge in Esher as we are to meet it in any other part of the country.

    Council Tax
    . Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the position of students in relation to payment of the council tax.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): Most students will pay no council tax at all. Students halls of residence will be exempt, as will dwellings occupied exclusively by students. A student who lives with non-students will not be counted towards the personal element of the tax. That means that he will not add to the household's bill. For instance, where a student lives with one parent, the dwelling will be treated as having only one resident and a 25 per cent. discount will apply.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister—[Interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady can hardly be heard. I should be grateful for order in all parts of the House.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the position of some students in my constituency who share houses in multiple occupation? If one person ceases to be a student, the household will be liable for the full council tax, less the 25 per cent. rebate. If two people cease to be students, the household will be liable for the full council tax. Does the Minister think that that is fair?
    Mr. Squire: The short answer is yes. I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Lady, who represents one of our great university cities, has not welcomed the fact that the overwhelming majority of students will not be paying tax in future years. The only way to remove the position that she has highlighted would be to extend exemption for council tax to those who were either in employment or eligible to claim benefit. The Government believe that that would be quite wrong.

    Macclesfield
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Macclesfield borough council about the housing investment programme allocation and the provision of low-cost housing.
    Mr. Baldry: Following the receipt of Macclesfield's housing investment programme strategy and bid for resources for 1993–94 in August, the council made a presentation to me in Macclesfield of its housing plans and proposals on 14 September. Later in September, officials from the Department's north-west regional office and the Housing Corporation met council officers to discuss the details of the strategy and bid. I have also corresponded with the leader of the council on these matters.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the housing department of Macclesfield borough council is extremely well run, that it does an excellent job and that it deserves the Government's support? Of course, the council is under overall Conservative control—one of the few, if not the only one, in the north-west.
    Does my hon. Friend further accept that low-cost housing in areas such as Macclesfield is essential if we are to provide the range of housing accommodation that is desperately required? The problems of a well-off area exacerbate the problems of people on low incomes. Would my hon. Friend pay particular attention to that need in Macclesfield?
    Mr. Baldry: Macclesfield council made a constructive and positive submission in its housing investment programme. Its performance and needs will be well reflected in the amounts made available to it in the coming year's housing investment programme.

    Toxic Waste
    Mr. Sweeney: to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to minimise the international trade in toxic waste; and if he will make a statement.
    .Mr. Maclean: Our policy is that all developed countries should dispose of their own waste—the principle of self-sufficiency. This principle is incorporated in the EC waste shipments regulation, which was agreed at Council on 20 October.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a duty to accept waste from developing countries, and what is being done to help developing countries to dispose of their own waste?
    Mr. Maclean: When the Basel convention is ratified and the EC waste shipment regulation takes effect, all developed countries and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries will be able to deal with waste from developing countries and to help them deal with the problem. We are quite adamant, however, that the developed world—especially Britain—should not take waste from developed countries that can deal with it themselves.

Prince and Princess of Wales
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Buckingham palace is at this moment issuing the following statement. It reads as follows:
"It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. Their Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce and their constitutional positions are unaffected. This decision has been reached amicably, and they will both continue to participate fully in the upbringing of their children.
Their Royal Highnesses will continue to carry out full and separate programmes of public engagements, and will from time to time attend family occasions and national events together.
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathise with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness particularly hope that the intrusions into the privacy of the Prince and Princess may now cease. They believe that a degree of privacy and understanding is essential if Their Royal Highnesses are to provide a happy and secure upbringing for their children, while continuing to give a whole-hearted commitment to their public duties."
That is the text of the announcement.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House— and millions beyond it—in offering our support to both the Prince and Princess of Wales. I am also sure that the House will sympathise with the wish that they should both be afforded a degree of privacy.
The House will wish to know that the decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the throne is unaffected by it; the children of the Prince and Princess retain their position in the line of succession; and there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course. The Prince of Wales's succession as head of the Church of England is also unaffected. Neither the Prince nor the Princess is supported by the civil list, and this position will remain unchanged.
I know that there will be great sadness at this news. But I know also that, as they continue with their royal duties and with bringing up their children, the Prince and Princess will have the full support, understanding and affection of the House and of the country.
Mr. John Smith: May I, first, thank the Prime Minister for making a statement to the House? I am sure that the whole House will share the feeling of sadness that he has expressed at the announcement of the separation and will share the hope that a greater degree of privacy might result for the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children in what would be a difficult time for any family. We associate ourselves entirely with the expression of support for the Prince and Princess of Wales in the carrying out of their public duties.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I wish to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the words of the Prime Minaster and the Leader of the Opposition. These will be difficult times for the royal family, and the whole House will wish to extend to them our sympathy, especially to the Prince and Princess of Wales, and to assure them that whatever decisions they take on these purely personal matters, they can be assured of our continued support in future. I wish to reinforce the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing the hope that they will indeed be allowed a period of months—or longer if possible—in which they may have a degree of privacy and peace.
846
I thank the Prime Minister for having expressed so clearly the constitutional position and for having expressed what are, I am sure, sentiments that will be felt by all parties in the House. In particular, I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Prince and Princess of Wales for their past and continued service to the nation.
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have spoken for the country in what they have had to say and that I need comment no further upon their remarks.
Sir Edward Heath: I think that the House would wish me, as Father of the House, to express the understanding of the whole House of the action which has been taken and which has been so clearly described by the Prime Minister. It must be one of the saddest announcements made by any Prime Minister in modern times. I am sure that the whole House feels exactly the same way about it.
I also support the plea which has already been made for their Royal Highnesses to be granted privacy. May I suggest, in my position, that perhaps we in the House, in the questions we ask and the speeches we make, might give leadership in extending privacy to their Royal Highnesses.
Mr. William Ross: Does the Prime Minister understand that the statement was received by my party with deep regret and great sympathy for the royal family? May I support what the Prime Minister said in requesting a period of quietness for those who find themselves in this unfortunate situation? The last thing that any family needs at such a time is a forest of television or other cameras pointed in its direction. Indeed, if fewer cameras had been pointed in its direction and fewer comments made, perhaps this might not have happened.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On behalf of my party, I should like to associate myself with what the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties have said. The royal couple, especially their family, need our sympathy and our prayers. I trust that what has been said in the House about press coverage will be heeded and that the family will have a time of quiet and calm to get over this problem.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Prime Minister accept that even a family of great wealth and position has felt the strains which have resulted in divorce—in separation—and in difficulties for the marriage? Is not it true that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people go through similar strains and are afflicted by an equal degree of sadness? Is not it also true that poor housing, low pay and rotten conditions of employment place much greater strains on marriages and that it will be a welcome day when the Government make a statement to the House to relieve those strains, not only those affecting the narrow royal family?
The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House will endorse many of the remarks that have been made in the last few minutes by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. To ensure that there is no dispute or misunderstanding, may I make the point beyond any dispute that their Royal

847
Highnesses have separated— both the Prince and the Princess have made it clear that they have no plans to divorce.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister realise that probably the most controversial part of what he said was that there would be no constitutional changes? Would not it be fair to say that, as a result of the occurrences in recent months and the pushing of the self-destruct button by the monarchy, we could now be witnessing the end of the monarchy and that the reigning Queen could be the last? That could not be blamed on those of us who believe that there is no need for a monarchy in this land now.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind the fact that the shattering announcement will result in changes in our constitution. It is high time that we stopped this charade of swearing allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors, because we do not know from time to time who they are.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does not, I believe, speak for the nation, or for any significant part of it. The affection for the monarchy and for members of the royal family in this country is deep, widespread and enduring. We live in a monarchy and, if I may speak personally, I hope and believe that we always will.
Dame Jill Knight: May I say, Madam Speaker, how greatly I and my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I am sure, many Opposition Members, resent and reject the remarks by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I would not wish the voice of this House to say anything other than that we are loyal subjects of Her Majesty, and we fully appreciate what she does for this nation, which is immeasurable.
Madam Speaker: Order. We now move on. Thank you, Prime Minister.

Points of Order
3.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the protection of the integrity of proceedings in the House, and of Hansard as a record of those proceedings, not only for those who consult it now but for future historians.
I refer to a statement made in the House on 19 October by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whom I have notified of my intention to raise a point of order. His absence is, I fear, a further illustration of his attitude to the integrity of proceedings in the House. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I had to go to Corby in 1979 when the Labour party closed the steelworks"—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 209.]
I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and told him that what he had said was not true, because it was the Conservative Government who closed the steelworks. In my letter I said:
"What you have said is an untruth and I am writing to ask you to apologise for purveying this untruth and to withdraw your statement."
The right hon. Gentleman replied to me, dodging what I had said. I wrote again, and last week I received a letter from him which still failed to apologise for the untruth of what he had said. Nevertheless, the letter acknowledged that what the right hon. Gentleman has said was untrue, by saying that the announcement of the closure of the steelworks was made on 1 November 1979, six months after the Conservative Government came to office. The closure took place the following year.
The Secretary of State has now acknowledged that what he said to the House was not true. Nevertheless, he has knowingly left an untrue statement on the record of the proceedings of the House. Before now Ministers have been compelled to resign for knowingly not telling the truth to the House of Commons. In this case, a right hon. Gentleman has knowingly not told the truth and has admitted by implication that he has not told the truth, yet he is allowing his untruth to remain on the record, in Hansard. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to require him to make an apology and a correction so that the record may be accurate.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will be aware that the Speaker is not responsible for the accuracy of the speeches by Ministers or, for that matter, by Back Benchers. Had the right hon. Gentleman attempted to raise this matter with me on 19 or 20 October, I might have been able to take some action—[Interruption.] There is no point in hon. Members raising their hands; I have not finished yet. What happened is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair. If there has been an inaccuracy, however, the right hon. Gentleman has corrected it by his statement today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: There is no further point of order. I have dealt with the question.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I remind you that the matter was raised on—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the matter as far as I can at this stage, and any inaccuracy has been fully corrected by the right hon. Member for Gorton.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On another point of order, Madam Speaker. In last week's business statement, the debate that we are about to have was styled as a debate on the common fisheries policy. I understand that certain documents pertaining to that policy have not been seen by the House. I refer to documents relating to a so-called presidential compromise on new proposals for the common fisheries policy. I have checked, and have discovered that the documents are not available. May I therefore ask you whether it is in order that we should have a debate that was meant to be on the common fisheries policy without the documents being available to us? If it is not, is there any guarantee that we shall have the opportunity to debate the common fisheries policy before decisions are signed, sealed and delivered in Brussels next week?
Madam Speaker: It is not for the occupant of the Chair but for the hon. Gentleman himself to determine whether he has sufficient information to enable him to make up his mind about the Government's intentions. It will be a wide-ranging debate, and I can tell him that the motion on the Order Paper is perfectly in order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to determine how he should proceed in the debate.
Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like again to try to raise with you the point of order—
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order. I have made that absolutely clear. The right hon. Member for Gorton who raised the original point of order did so quite properly and he has been answered quite properly and to the best of my ability. We shall now make progress.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    TRADE BOYCOTTS
    Mr. Spencer Batiste, supported by Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Edward Garnier, Sir John Wheeler, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. Greville Janner, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. David Alton and Mr. Michael Gapes, presented a Bill to prohibit companies from giving information for the purposes of a trade boycott which has not been approved by United Nations or European Community agreement; and for connected purposes And the same was read a First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon 9 July 1993; and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

Racial Violence
3.47 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make racial violence a specific criminal offence; to make other related amendments of the law; and for connected purposes.
In the past few weeks, much attention has been given to racial violence abroad. The murder by neo-Nazi thugs of three Turkish females, two of them children, deeply shocked much of Europe. This week has seen the terrible outbreak of communal violence in India and surrounding areas. We do not yet know how many people have died on the Indian sub-continent since Sunday. The attacks—be they in Germany, in other parts of Europe or on the Indian sub-continent—have, in the main, been engineered by extremists, basically of the same kind, as we know only too well from pre-war Europe. Thugs are thugs, regardless of colour, nationality or religion.
We must also recognise, however, that although, fortunately, the problem here is by no means as alarming as in many places abroad, we, too, suffer from continuing racial violence—or, I should say, the victims suffer from it. It is ugly, brutal and deeply obnoxious. That is why I am asking the House today for permission to bring in a Bill to make racial violence a specific criminal offence in law.
Some may say that I am really referring to harassment or prejudicial remarks. That is not so, although racial harassment is ugly enough and there can be a thin dividing line between it and outright violence against the person. Nevertheless, I am referring to racial violence, and the picture is one that should cause concern to all of us—even on the figures supplied by the Home Office. The figures show an alarming increase in racial attacks. The official figures refer to nearly 8,000 racial attacks in a year. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is listening, I must state that few would seriously dispute that the real figure is tragically far greater than that. Some people believe that there are as many as 50,000 or even 70,000 attacks in a given year motivated by outright racialism. That is a very serious situation.
During the past year at least four people—The Economist referred this week to nine people—have been murdered in Britain as a result of racist attacks. Someone was convicted recently of murdering a 15-year-old Asian boy during a burglary at an off licence. After his arrest, that person gave a nazi salute and called out "Sieg heil" twice as he was apprehended by police. So far, no one has been charged in respect of the brutal murder of a Tamil refugee who was allowed into this country as he was fleeing from terror. That youngster was put to death as a result of racism, the crime was undoubtedly racially motivated, and the sooner those responsible for the death of that youth are brought to justice, the better.
The large majority of racial attacks, however, involve bodily harm or grievous bodily harm. As has been the case with bullies throughout the ages, the more defenceless types are subject to that sickening violence. Very often, the victims are Asian women and children.
We should not conclude that the problem is confined to the capital. Last month The Scotsman reported that incidents of racial violence were increasing. The senior community relations officer in Strathclyde was quoted as saying that evidence coming in to the community relations council and black advice centres showed that such violence

851
was very much on the increase, and that in the west midlands and also in the Strathclyde area, unfortunately, fascist organisations were attempting to stir up the maximum amount of racial hatred.
There seems to be a contradiction in the law as it stands. Incitement to racial violence is a criminal offence and many of us fought and campaigned for that. It is right and proper that such provision should be on the statute book. However, the existence of organisations like the national front and the so-called British national party, whose headquarters is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), arises from an attempt to stir up the maximum amount of racial strife and hatred. There is undoubtedly a contradiction there.
I welcome the moves that have been taken in Germany. They may be rather late in the day, but they are intended to deal with fascist organisations. The day may come when we shall have to deal with such individuals as well. I do not suggest that we should simply ban such organisations because the people concerned could easily form another organisation the next day. We must be clear that there is a contradiction along the lines that I have just described.
Like the Commission for Racial Equality, I believe that amending the law as I now suggest would be a recognition by Parliament and thus by the courts that racial violence should be regarded as an aggravating feature in prosecution and when a person has been duly convicted. That would send two messages. First, there would be a message to people who are in the business of inflicting such racial violence. There would also be a different message to those in the community at large and in the ethnic communities.
Amending the law as I suggest would also show our total abhorrence of the kind of crime that I have described. It would hopefully stimulate a more realistic level of reporting of such offences and demonstrate to all the seriousness with which we view attacks on people because of their colour or race.
All forms of attack and criminality are to be deplored. We want to bring to justice everyone who carries out criminality. That goes without saying. I am drawing attention today to a particular type of criminality whereby people are attacked simply because they happen to have skin which is a different colour from that of the majority of people in this country or because of their racial origin or the religion that they pursue. That is unforgivable and the House cannot ignore it.
852
My Bill is not meant to be an overall solution. Nor is it intended to be a substitute for existing laws. If anything, I want to see the existing laws strengthened. My proposed Bill would be part of coming to grips with the problem. It would be one more step to remove the fear and agony which exists.
Fortunately, a large majority of people of the ethnic minorities live in our country without difficulties. They live law-abiding lives and, by and large, do not have the sort of difficulties that I have described. However, there are those is certain parts of the country who have suffered day in and day out the fear and agony of being attacked for the reasons which I have outlined. My proposed Bill would be one of a number of steps to end such criminality.
Some time ago, going back indeed about a quarter of a century, with other Labour Members I argued for changes in the law to do away with race discrimination. Those measures were introduced largely as a result of the Labour majority of the late 1960s. All that has happened has demonstrated how right we were to argue for such changes.
I believe that my Bill is another step to ensure that we can all live in this country without fear of persecution or terror of any sort, regardless of our colour, race or background.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow an intervention now that the hon. Gentleman has sat down or, for that matter, during a 10-minute rule speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John Austin-Walker, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Bernie Grant, Ms. Joan Lestor and Mr. Max Madden.

Racial Violence
  RACIAL VIOLENCE
  Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to make racial violence a specific criminal offence; to make other related amendments of the law; and for connected purposes And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Fishing Industry
Madam Speaker: We now come to a motion on fisheries. I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.58 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9697/92, relating to guide prices for fishery products for 1993, the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 7th December 1992, relating to total allowable catches and quotas for 1993, and the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1993 consistent with the requirements for conservation of fishing stocks.
I welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Dr. Strang) to the Front Bench to talk about fishing policies.
The House is conscious of the risks and difficulties that our fishermen face. We have been reminded this year, through the publication of the marine accident inquiry report, of the Antares tragedy. Only a couple of weeks ago we had sad news of the deaths of three in-shore fishermen from Cornwall. Danger is never far away, and fishing is not an easy occupation for the fishermen or their families.
In a normal year this debate provides one of the few occasions for the House to discuss fisheries matters. This year is rather different. Consideration of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, which comes before us again this evening, has allowed for a surfeit of fisheries debates.
On the other hand, this is an especially important year for the fishing industry. It is fortuitous that so many matters have come to fruition during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community.
We have been making good progress with the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. A new four-year multi-annual guidance programme on the capacity of fishing fleets has just been agreed. There is a new fisheries agreement with Iceland, subject to the European Economic Area coming into force, and fisheries relations with Canada have been improved. I pay tribute to the skilful chairmanship of my hon. Friend in making so much progress in recent debates in the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister will be aware that feelings are running high in the fishing communities. That is evident from the action that is being taken north of the border today, which I firmly support. The Minister says that good progress has been made on the common fisheries policy. Will he confirm that a new United Kingdom Government document exists in which the British Government, as president of the Community, make new proposals for the common fisheries policy? That document has not been seen by any Member of Parliament. Does he seriously expect Members of Parliament to accept that we are having this debate on fisheries today yet next week or the week after the Minister and his colleagues will sign, seal and deliver a fisheries agreement without the House having any opportunity to debate its provisions?
Sir Hector Monro: I stand at the Dispatch Box today to make a speech about our policy. The hon. Gentleman has hardly given me a chance to start. He would not expect to
854
see the negotiation document. But, clearly, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I go to Brussels next week, we shall do our best to help the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. We are well aware of the protests in Lochinver and the Firth of Forth today; we understand the reason for them. But at the same time the fishermen must understand our difficulty and understand that we cannot concede more fish than conservation will permit. The reason for the debate is to allow opinions to be expressed which will be borne in mind by Ministers in Brussels. I shall return later to some of the issues that I have mentioned.
Agreement was reached in November on guide prices and on quantities and tariff rates for fish being imported into the Community. It is important that we have retained, against some contrary suggestions, the dual price system for herring which is particularly important to the Scottish pelagic fleet so that they can continue to sell in bulk to the klondykers. I hope that that trade will be able to take place in 1993 without the need for autonomous prices.
On tariff quotas and suspensions, the measures agreed struck a balance between the needs of fish catchers for a stable market and the needs of processors and consumers for access to a range of fish supplies. The measures were based on the assumption that tariff-free supplies would be arriving from European Free Trade Association suppliers under the agreement on the European economic area. This weekend's events in Switzerland suggest that that assumption will not now be correct. We therefore consider that the tariff quotas and suspensions for 1993 need reconsidering since the EEA is not about to come into effect. The signs are that the Commission shares that view and will propose an appropriate revision— as indeed it formally undertook to do if its underlying assumptions were not fulfilled. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has written to Commissioner Marin pressing him to make early proposals taking into account the new situation.
I now turn to total allowable catches and quotas. Some of our most important fisheries are managed within a fisheries agreement with Norway. I regret that thus far, after three long rounds of negotiations, it has not yet been possible to conclude an agreement between the Community and Norway for 1993. I am therefore not able to be as precise about the expected levels of quotas next year as I would like to be. However, I assure the House that officials will do their best to reopen the negotiations at their level as soon as possible.
The scientific advice on white roundfish stocks is generally not good. Haddock is in a better position and it is likely that there will be an increase in the North sea haddock total allowable catch from 60,000 tonnes this year to about 133,000 tonnes for 1993. The west coast TAC will be increased from less than 12,500 tonnes to 17,600 tonnes. Of course, that is good news, especially for the Scottish fleet, but the stock will still need to be husbanded carefully if the TAC increase is not simply to be a flash in the pan. I shall return to that point later.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister makes the important point that the stock must be husbanded carefully. Does he agree that if the Commission insists that there should be industrial catches, it is important that they should be kept to an absolute minimum?
Sir Hector Monro: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we stressed that last time that we were in Brussels. In the United Kingdom we have grave doubts about industrial fishing, but it is important to some Scandinavian countries. We have that matter firmly in mind. I have given the grand totals for the North sea and west coast and, as the House knows, we still have to negotiate our exact quota with Norway.
Setting aside haddock, the general picture continues to be worrying.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister comment on the fact that—as I understand it—the Hague preference has been abandoned and, although there is to be an increase in the total allowable catch, the British quota of TAC will not remain the same but will be reduced by about 10 per cent.?
Sir Hector Monro: I was coming to the Hague preference, which is especially important for Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
The North sea cod stock remains in a dangerous state and maintaining the 1992 TAC level of 100,000 tonnes is the most that can be justified. Saithe stocks in the North sea and to the west of Scotland are also in poor shape and there is a recommended reduction in the whiting TAC. However, it is encouraging that North sea sole and plaice stocks are strong, with a significant increase in the sole TAC from 27,500 to 29,000 tonnes.
Demersal stocks in the Irish sea continue to be in a poor state generally, and the scientific advice is for reduced fishing to allow stocks to recover. It should be possible to avoid any reduction in the present TAC for cod, following improved recruitment to that stock. The position on whiting is more difficult, but we believe that there is a case for setting a TAC slightly above the 6,500 tonnes proposed by the Commission, without endangering the stock, particularly on the basis of the use of square mesh panels to release juvenile fish.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister will be well aware that Northern Ireland fishermen depend on the whiting catch. Can he confirm that a 35 per cent. cut in the catch is proposed, which would mean that Northern Ireland fishermen would get only 18 per cent. of the whiting catch? That would put the Northern Ireland fishing industry in a terrible state and bring it near to catastrophe.
Sir Hector Monro: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give the detailed figures in his winding-up speech. If the hon. Gentleman cannot be here, we shall certainly ensure that he gets the information.
In the channel, the scientific advice suggests maintaining or slightly reducing the present TAC for many stocks. Cod is the main exception, and a reduction in the TAC from 20,000 tonnes to 16,800 is proposed. Scientific information available on the cod stock is rather limited. We shall consider carefully whether a higher figure than that proposed by the Commission can be justified for cod, and for sole and plaice.
Pelagic fish stocks continue to be healthy, with little change expected in the TACs for the main herring and mackerel stocks.
Decisions on TAC levels will be taken at the next Council of Fisheries Ministers, which I and my hon.
856
Friend will attend on 19 and 20 December. Our main objectives will be familiar to the House from previous debates.
We want to secure the highest TACs consistent with the scientific advice— that is, with ensuring the future healthy state of the stocks. We shall be anxious to secure our Hague preference rights, where those apply, but we know that they are strongly contested by other states and it is prudent to edge up our TACs—where that can possibly be justified—to avoid triggering Hague preference arrangements. As things stand, we expect the Hague preference arrangements to be triggered to our advantage for west of Scotland saithe and whiting. In the Irish sea, the arrangements will come into play against us for cod, whiting and plaice, but we hope to help the situation through swaps. Of course, we want to ensure mackerel flexibility so that the United Kingdom fleet can fish that important but migratory stock in the autumn, east of the four degree west longitude line.
The Commission's proposals for TACs and quotas include a proposal for a tie-up scheme to limit fishing effort against cod and haddock. It is similar in principle to the eight days per month tie-up that we had in 1991 and the 135-day tie-up in 1992, but the proposal is for a tie-up of 190 days, including at least 10 consecutive days per calendar month. The United Kingdom has made it clear that that proposal is not acceptable. We have agreed a multi-annual guidance programme for the next four years, which will reduce fishing effort right across the United Kingdom fleet through a combination of decommissioning, effort control and licensing measures. In that context, a measure targeted at particular group of boats, for example, a 10-day tie-up, is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister will recall that during an Adjournment debate last week he said that a 200-day tie-up was a rumour. He has now said that a tie-up of 190 days is unacceptable, and I agree. What will he negotiate in terms of tie-up days? What do the Government see as acceptable? There are only 365 days in a year and our men must make a living.
Sir Hector Monro: The answer is absolutely none—
Mr. Salmond: No tie-up?
Sir Hector Monro: We are not in favour of the proposal at all. We do not favour any consecutive tie-up of eight or 10 days.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is sitting beside the hon. Gentleman, has given a clear understanding that the arrangements for next year would be nothing worse than a freeze. I understand the difficulty about not revealing one's negotiating hand, but we must have a clear understanding from the Government of what is going on. If the Fisheries Council is even thinking of a freeze, it must consider temporary compensation for tie-up or some other solution to the industry's problem. Consideration must be given to establishing a system of support through social security, income support and family credit that reflects the fact that those in the fishing industry, particularly in this country, are having their opportunity for earnings statutorily restrained in the next 12 months.
Sir Hector Monro: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and so does my hon. Friend the Minister—he may be an excellent fisheries Minister, but he is not a ventriloquist and I have not picked up all the information that he has passed on to me today.
Next week we will go to Brussels with a firm determination that the Commission should withdraw the 190-day tie-up proposal. If it does not, we will oppose it as vigorously as possible in the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have outflanked Europe with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill? We are now one step ahead. Does he agree that that Bill will kill the current proposal from Europe?
Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is right. If the Bill receives Royal Assent—we hope to make progress later tonight—all the arrangements for conservation can be covered by it. We think that that is a far superior way to maintain our conservation policies than that proposed by the Commission.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister make it clear beyond doubt that it is his intention, and that of the Government, to oppose the eight consecutive days tie-up in the next round of negotiations and to oppose any consecutive tie-up requirement of that sort?
Sir Hector Monro: I can give the hon. Gentleman the absolute firm assurance that that is our intention.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Sir Hector Monro: I shall give way, but we must make some progress.
Mr. Salmond: It is courteous of the Minister to give way. I wish to reassure him that my fishermen think that he is a very nice man, but that he has no power. It is not just a question of the ventriloquist sitting beside him—
Mr. Menzies Campbell: That is not what they think of you.
Mr. Salmond: They think other things of me, but at least they elect me.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), the Minister said that no tie-up was acceptable. Does he believe that a tie-up imposed by Brussels is not acceptable but that a tie-up imposed by London is acceptable?
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is a great chap for trying to misquote hon. Members. I made it clear that we would firmly oppose a consecutive day tie-up, whether it was eight or 10 days. The scheme contained in the Bill, which I hope will receive Royal Assent, is a superior way of helping our fishermen to conserve fish.
The fishing industry must accept that restrictions are inevitable. All hon. Members have accepted that. If we have no restrictions, in a year or two's time there will be a substantial reduction in the number of fish available.
Mr. Wallace: Before this series of interventions, the Minister referred to the multi-annual guidance programme and said that he saw it as both effort limitation—for which we can read the words "tie-up"—and reduction in capacity. When he talks about measures that the British Government wish to introduce through the
858
legislation that we shall debate later, will he make it clear whether the purpose of that legislation is conservation or to meet our MAGP targets? What is the formula for converting effort limitation into reduction in capacity?
Sir Hector Monro: It gives us an opportunity of all forms of restrictions where they are required for conservation. We want to do the best that we can to achieve sufficient conservation with the least difficulty for the fishing industry. I know that it is not easy, but we are trying extremely hard to find the right half-way house to restrict effort. It is clear from the scientific advice that we have received that we must continue to restrict effort. We must do that in the best way possible with the least inconvenience to the fishing industry.
I shall discuss the MAGP in a moment, but I shall not give way much more because hon. Members want to contribute to the debate so that we can take their ideas to Europe next week.
Mr. George Kynoch: I know that my hon. Friend wants effort limitation and conservation without harming the industry. However, will he look seriously at the non-sector fishermen, who seem to resemble tail-end charlies who mop up the situation after quotas have been allocated elsewhere? If certain sectors have over-fished their quotas, non-sector fishermen have been cut off in their prime before fishing their complete quota. I understand that the retribution may be that the quotas allocated next year will be reduced so that they will get more; but if they cannot get it this year, they cannot make use of it next year. Will the Government look seriously at how the quota could be better managed so that smaller non-sector fishermen are not harmed and whole communities put out of business?
Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. As I said in an Adjournment debate last week, the producer organisations and the non-sector fishermen must keep roughly in step, otherwise what my hon. Friend outlined will happen. Fisheries might be closed because the POs have fished their quota and the non-sector fishermen have not achieved their limit. Yes, we must try to get the balance right, in the hope that the detailed quotas will be announced after next week's Council and that the POs and the non-sector fishermen will be able to balance it out over the 12 months so that we do not face the difficulty of running out of quota as we did in October and November this year.
We have firmly asked the Commission to withdraw the proposal of a 10-day tie-up because we find it unacceptable. However, the total allowable catch and quota proposals also contain several other technical conservation measures. We welcome the retention of the one-net rule in the derogation to fish for whiting in the North sea with a 90 mm net and measures to prevent that derogation from being abused.
Multi-annual guidance programmes have recently been agreed to secure reductions in the EC fishing fleets for the period 1993 to 1996—four years. The key features are that the Commission has agreed that its original proposal for a 30 per cent. reduction for white fish trawlers was not realisable and, instead, the reductions are to be 20 per cent. for white fish trawlers and 15 per cent. for beam trawlers and nothing for pelagic vessels,
After taking account of the United Kingdom's backlog from its last programme, our overall reduction is 19 per

859
cent. over the four years, of which up to 8·5 per cent. may be achieved by reductions in fishing effort rather than capacity. Our target will be met by the combination of decommissioning, licensing changes and effort control that we announced in February, and subsequently introduced in the Bill.
It is our intention that effort control in 1993—control of a vessel's days at sea—will be exercised under the arrangements proposed in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, subject to its receiving Royal Assent.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely all the measures that the Minister keeps describing are, by their nature, unselected measures. The real effort control involves the sort of effort required to ensure that good years of fish are available for the future and to provide the basis of stock. Surely the Minister should consider gear options, square mesh panels and the various devices that fishermen say are more effective in ensuring that we conserve stocks and that do not merely tie up boats without improving conservation.
Sir Hector Monro: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is extremely keen on conservation. Our fisheries department is constantly looking at gear options, which it discusses with fishermen, and particularly at panels and mesh sizes. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should not miss an opportunity to improve the overall position to give advantage to our fishermen, provided we do so within the terms of conservation.
It is our intention that, by 1993, effort control will be covered by the Bill, subject to its receiving Royal Assent. I am concerned about the views being expressed to us by the fishing industry that the good news on haddock means that effort limitation is not now required when fishing for that stock. That would he irresponsible.
Mr. Wallace: The Minister has not answered the question that I asked him earlier. If meeting the targets involves a combination of effort control and decommissioning, what is the formula used for translating days at sea or tie-ups into reduction of capacity? There must be a formula, otherwise it would be impossible to say that both devices are used to reach the MAGP targets. What is the formula?
Sir Hector Monro: It is almost impossible to declare the formula as it will involve a compromise of all the options in order to find the most effective solution that is least inconvenient to fishermen. That has been the thrust of our policy. I believe—Opposition Members may think otherwise—that there is no doubt that we have done our level best to assist fishermen. I know that fishermen feel that they have had a rough ride this year and that the fact that we ran out of quota made their position even worse. However, I know from the frequent contacts that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has with the fishing industry that fishermen accept that we are doing our level best to provide the best solution to what is a Community issue which is not as straightforward as some people might like to think.
Mr. Nick Ainge rose—
Sir Hector Monro: I cannot give way as I must finish my speech, and many hon. Members want to speak.
I am dismayed that so many of those in the fishing industry feel that the large increase in the number of
860
haddock means that they can relax. We have made a step in the right direction, but it will not provide the answer for ever.
We must recognise that, although haddock is now once again abundant, the stock is still very fragile because it depends on only two year classes. It would be only too easy to fish it out next year, with substantial discards, and with the prospect of a shortage again by 1995. Proper effort limitation arrangements next year should help to avoid that, and should also incidentally help more orderly marketing, which is important if reasonable price levels are to be achieved.
As regards the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy, I shall only say that good progress is being made. We hope that the forthcoming Fisheries Council will be in a position to agree a new basic regulation for the next 10 years of the CFP. A draft of this regulation is now under detailed discussion by officials. It relects clear decisions in principle already taken by the Council of Ministers which will preserve the existing access rules in relation to the six and 12-mile limits and the Shetland box, and relative stability in the annual distribution of TACs.
The administration of fisheries is never easy, and has been particularly difficult in the past few years; it will no doubt continue to be so. But the picture is not entirely bleak, and I am glad to have been able to report to the House this evening some improvements in the state of fish stocks, and satisfactory progress so far in securing our main objectives in the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend and I will do our best to secure a satisfactory outcome on all these matters at the forthcoming Council in Brussels.
I must explain that I have to be away later this evening, so I apologise in advance for not being here for the winding-up speeches. No doubt my hon. Friend will take the opportunity then to answer questions arising from the debate.
4.26 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from 'quotas for 1993, and' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'calls upon the Government to ensure at the forthcoming Fisheries Council meeting that British fishing interests are protected within the review of the Common Fisheries Policy and in particular to ensure that any structural changes or conservation measures are only applied to the United Kingdom fleet if other member states implement similar changes; and rejects the implementation of any measures that unfairly discriminate against British fishermen, interfere with the principle of relative stability and deny British fishermen equal access to the same level of EC funding utilised by other EC states.'.
The fishing industry makes a significant contribution to our national well-being. It provides a valuable and healthy part of our national diet. In many coastal areas, the industry, including the catching, processing and distribution sectors, along with ancillary businesses, forms the mainstay of the local economy. But the fact is that the industry is in crisis. Prices have been low and quotas have been fished out, with the result that boats are standing idle.
This afternoon, I do not intend to argue that all the problems are the fault of the British Government, but they must accept a large share of the responsibility. For years, they have failed to accept the advice of the industry on conservation and above all on the need for a reduction in capacity, brought about by a properly managed and

861
socially acceptable decommissioning scheme. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read our main fisheries debates over the past few years will be struck by the extent to which Members on both sides of the House who represent fishing constituencies have argued the case for an effective decommissioning scheme to reduce capacity. The Government failed to take that advice—the fundamental reason why we believe that they have failed the industry.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Dr. Strang: I will not give way. Like the Minister, I am keen that all hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies should have a chance to speak today. I did not intervene on the Minister, and I do not intend to give way to interventions today.
The central task of Government fisheries management is to regulate the fishing effort at a level that will protect the fishing grounds from over-exploitation. We need so to organise our affairs as to provide for the balanced exploitation of fishing stocks over the long term, with a fishing industry that is able to provide decent returns and a reasonable level of job security for the men and women who derive their livelihood from it. No one could say that that is being achieved.
The control of fishing methods—increasing mesh sizes, using spare panels—has an important part to play, and catch quotas also play a significant role. There is, however, a requirement for a managed and socially acceptable reduction in the capacity of the industry.
In all our fisheries debates over the past few years, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been arguing the case that I have outlined. It is true that there were weaknesses in the decommissioning scheme in the early 1980s, which were outlined in the report of the Public Accounts Committee. The weaknesses or failures were the result of the misguided detailed rules and faulty implementation. There is no reason in principle why we cannot have an effective decommissioning scheme.
The Government's refusal to consider a decommissioning programme has been followed by a change of heart. The industry and the Labour party have been campaigning for many years for an effective scheme, and it is not as if we have been trying to persuade the Government to implement a policy that would be in conflict with EC recommendations. Almost every other EC member state has run, or is running, a decommissioning scheme. The House will know that the EC makes a financial contribution to such a scheme.
We agree with the conclusion of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities that the Government's proposals for a decommissioning scheme announced in February are too little, too late.
"The Committee accept that £25 million is not even enough to prevent the fleet capacity from expanding; four or five times that amount is now needed to make up for the lack of a decommissioning scheme in the United Kingdom during the last decade."
A decommissioning scheme must be tightly related to taking capacity out of the industry. We are talking about a scheme which, unlike the original one, which was completely discredited, will provide compensation for the employees of fishermen and for all the fishermen involved in the industry, and not only for those who own the boats. Furthermore, the scheme must provide properly balanced
862
help for the communities that will be most severely affected. If we can use the EC social fund in that way for the steel and mining industries, there is no reason why we should not be able to win some EC help for the type of adjustment that will have to be made in communities that will have to accept some reduction in the numbers of people earning their livelihoods directly from the industry.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Strang: I shall give way once to the Minister, but I shall not give way again.
Mr. Curry: I am deeply honoured, and most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has quoted a report that says that four or five times £25 million would be required for decommissioning. Is he endorsing that sort of figure from the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Strang: I was quoting the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee.
The cost of a decommissioning scheme will depend very much on benefits that are available for communities. We are not suggesting that we can have a decommissioning scheme on the cheap—far from it. If the Government had implemented a decent scheme, they might have operated it much more cheaply than any scheme that might now be introduced if we are to achieve a significant reduction in British fishing capacity in future. The scheme that the Government have put forward—they have done so belatedly, and, as I understand it, it will operate for only two or three years—will not be able to achieve what is required. I was happy to receive the Minister's question, but the fixed sum that will be available for the two or three-year period will not be adequate for the purpose.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland spoke about the Government's objectives in relation to total allowable catches. In broad measure, I support what he said. It is necessary to remove the tie-up requirement. At the same time, we all agree that we must accept scientific advice. I know that there are times when fishing communities feel that that advice is not as reliable as it might be, but there is no way of proceeding other than on the basis of considering such advice, the Council of Ministers considering it and then the taking of a final decision.
Of course, there is scope for adjustment, and we all know that adjustments tend to be upwards. I hope that the Minister achieves some adjustment to stop the Hague preference coming into operation—not least because of the interests of the fishing communities in the south-west of England, and with respect to the Irish element in the Hague preference.
I was somewhat taken aback by the Minister's reference to the multi-annual guidance programme. He will be aware that both the industry and the Opposition are astonished that the agreement reached by the EC Fisheries Structures Committee has been put forward by the Government as some sort of triumph. The figures say it all. Incorporating the backlogs from the 1986–91 programme, the United Kingdom has a fleet reduction target of 19 per cent., while Spain must make a reduction of just 4·5 per cent. In case any hon. Member is minded to intervene, I should explain that the Spanish reduction reflects the fact that Spain has made more progress than Britain. Although

863
there might be a paper figure of 8 per cent., I am talking about the reality—the relative impact—of the multi-annual guidance programme.
The Department's press release on 1 December announcing the agreement positively boasted about the fact that the United Kingdom had ensured that 45 per cent. of the planned reduction would be achieved by effort control. That is not what the industry or the Opposition want. I understand that the original intention was that 25 per cent. should be achieved by effort control.
Hon. Members will recall that there was a substantial debate in the European Standing Committee on the proposed review of the common fisheries policy. It is important that we take this opportunity—as I am sure many hon. Members will do—to give the Government further advice on that important matter. Fundamental decisions will be taken that will lay down the common fisheries policy for a number of years. Therefore, it is worth raising a few issues.
The first issue is policing and enforcement. The Minister will be aware that the Opposition have been keen to have European Community involvement in the enforcement of regulations. In particular, we recommend the establishment of multinational inspection teams to execute EC spot checks on the enforcement regimes of member states. Therefore, we are pleased to note that the policy review proposes the introduction of a Community monitoring system.
Some might argue that subsidiarity must be applied across the board. We take the view that the Government are using the issue of subsidiarity as a cover for their failure to put the economy on the agenda at the forthcoming EC summit. They are trying to pretend to some of their Back-Bench Members who are rather unhappy about any move towards European union that somehow subsidiarity could be a means of preventing that.
The reality is that we need effective national enforcement. We need large national enforcement teams. Britain has one, and it is certainly larger than those of other member states. We also need effective supervision and monitoring of the teams and of the action being taken in all member states to prevent overfishing. We want Commission involvement, but we also want the teams to involve inspectors from other countries.
We also want transparency. If we are to achieve acceptance of the enforcement of quotas and of the restrictive fishing methods needed for conservation, we must have the confidence of the whole industry—not just in this country, but throughout the Community—that it is real enforcement. We must achieve uniformity of penalties so that British fishermen are not, as many believe, subjected to higher penalties than fishermen elsewhere in the Community. I am not suggesting that some other countries do not also impose high penalties, but there needs to be some levelling upwards.
The second issue I wish to raise here is the fundamental one of future decisions on the management of stocks under the new common fisheries policy. We are concerned about the nature of the proposed management committee for fisheries, in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) noted in Standing Committee last month, there does not appear to be any role for the fishermen's organisations. Our concern is that decisions that should be taken by elected representatives in the Council of Ministers will be deferred to the committee. Yes, let us have a role for the European Parliament and
864
consultation with its Members, but the key decisions must be taken in the Council of Ministers by Ministers answerable to their national Parliaments.
We welcome the Community's proposal for a licensing scheme for all vessels in EC waters and EC vessels outside the zone. It is our policy to require the licensing of all boats fishing for profit. We are keen to ensure, however, that an EC licensing scheme is administered by member states. I welcome the Government's decision to apply licensing to all vessels. If we are to have an effective decommissioning scheme—I certainly hope that the Government will reconsider and propose a meaningful scheme—we must ensure that we have comprehensive licensing and can extinguish the capacity and the licence—
Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang: No. I said that I would give way only once. The hon. Gentleman can make his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will be happy to respond to any point that he wishes to make or to give any clarification of Labour policy.
It has been our policy for some time to introduce compulsory satellite tracking systems on all licensed boats over an agreed size. We are pleased that the Commission has proposed a 50 per cent. grant towards the costs of the required equipment, but we urge the Government to press for more generous assistance and to agree to make up the remaining cost from Government funds. As the system costs more than £1,000, it is only right that our fishermen should be offered substantial assistance in complying with the requirement.
I was interested in the Minister's comments on industrial fishing. As I am sure he knows, it has long been our policy that industrial fishing should be phased out. I would be the first to accept that that will not be achieved unilaterally, and that compensation will have to be offered to countries where a significant number of people are dependent on industrial fishing. We welcome the fact that the Government now endorse our approach, and we want the Minister to adopt a more positive approach to the issue in the Council than he implied earlier.
The issue that has hit the Scottish newspapers and some of the national media today is the blockade at Lochinver, which is a timely manifestation of the frustration that now exists in the industry. Nobody in the Labour party wants to see action of this nature, but the incident reflects the all-time low to which relations have fallen between the Government and the United Kingdom's fishing industry. Had the Government used a proper decommissioning scheme to reduce fishing capacity in recent years, the quotas allocated to Scottish fishermen for haddock and cod would not have been exhausted so early in the year, and the income from the fish would have provided a fairer return for the reduced number of fishermen in the industry.
There is no escaping the fact that the Government have failed the industry, and they must accept a substantial share of the responsibility for the turmoil in fishing communities. Fishermen's frustration will be given full expression on Friday when fishermen from all over the United Kingdom protest against the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill at the Edinburgh summit.
The Government must face up to the crisis. They must understand that it is not acceptable for a young man who may have invested all his capital and borrowed a

865
substantial sum of money to put a modern fishing boat to sea to be forced into bankruptcy by the Government's tie-up policy. There is no way in which the industry will accept that policy. If the Government depend on it—the Minister's comments did not suggest otherwise—it will have to be enforced with a rigour that will mean bankruptcies. It follows from that, no matter how much selectivity is built into the licensing system, that the youngest fishermen and those who have borrowed the most will be the most vulnerable.
It is unacceptable that we should impose this condition on our industry. The idea that boats should be tied up for substantial periods is indefensible. It will increase pressure on men when they are allowed to fish, and they will take more risks with the weather and will work excessive hours. Given the effect that it will have on the industry and on the people who earn their livelihoods from it, the policy is indefensible.
The Government failed to implement a decommissioning scheme and to take the industry's advice on effective conservation methods. They belatedly introduced square mesh panels and increased mesh sizes, but we are now paying the price for their failure to achieve a significant reduction in the capacity of the industry. A decommissioning scheme is not a panacea or a policy that can work on its own, but it takes the pressure off the use of quotas and means that they are not likely to be exhausted so quickly.
It also removes the temptation to cheat on controls on fishing gear, for example, by using more than one net when it is banned. We are all against black fish and the breaking of the rules by fishermen in this and other countries, but we have reached this position because too much pressure has been put on existing systems of control. The tie-up policy is not on. We must carry the industry with us if we are to achieve progress and to balance the needs of the industry with those of conservation.
The Government must use the Christmas recess to have a fundamental rethink of their policy on the fishing industry. Relations between the Government and the industry have never been worse. Quotas and fishing method restrictions for conservation purposes cannot be imposed effectively without the co-operation of the industry. At this month's Fisheries Council, the Government must stand up for Britain and defend the industry on fair quotas and fishing effort limitation.
But, above all, they must carry out an urgent, fundamental review of their policy on the industry. Their present policy has failed. They are on course for confrontation with the industry next year on the compulsory tying up of fishing vessels in our ports. That is no way to run an industry. The Government must think again.
4.49 pm
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: During a similar debate this time last year my predecessor, a Labour Member of Parliament, concluded his speech with the following words:
"His actions"—
meaning the Minister—
"have affected the election results. Before the 1983 election the Conservative party held five out of six seats in Grampian. The
866
most recent by-election has resulted in the Conservative party holding no seats in the Grampian region."—[Official Report, 11 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 941.]
True to form, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) could not resist rising to the bait. He said:
"Unless someone in the Scottish Tory Party can quickly devise a credible, vote-winning policy for Scottish fisheries during the coming months, their total elimination at the poll in all Scottish fishing constituencies is certain."—[Official Report, 11 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 960.]
Therefore, the Government must now have a credible, if still misunderstood, fishing policy because it was the Labour party which lost votes and representation in the north-east of Scotland and our party which won more votes and gained two seats.
The fishing industry is crucial to Aberdeen and to the north-east of Scotland. However, as I said in my maiden speech—
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way. I want the hon. Gentleman to use his ears, not his mouth, in this debate.
The fishing industry is crucial to Aberdeen and to the north-east of Scotland. However, as I said in my maiden speech, Aberdeen's relationship with the fishing industry has changed. The balance has moved from the catchers to the processors. Now, after Humberside, Aberdeen has the highest concentration of fish processing in the United Kingdom—most of it in my constituency, the rest being in the constituency of Aberdeen, North. In Aberdeen, South there are almost 3,000 direct jobs from fish processing, covering almost 150 businesses.
It might seem obvious but it is worth repeating that the processors require and depend on a constant, regular and dependable supply of fish at the right price. It is fair to say that in Humberside much more use is made of imported fish, especially from Iceland, but that in Aberdeen we are much more dependent on United Kingdom landings, especially those from the North sea. It is worth noting that in the league table of United Kingdom landings by value, three out of four are in Scotland—Peterhead, Aberdeen and Fraserburgh.
It is the long-term fish stocks which cause the processors, the House, the fishermen and me the most concern.
Mr. Salmond: Has the hon. Gentleman yet summoned the courage to give way?
Mr. Robertson: The Government have come in for much criticism for their stated policy of limiting days at sea. As I said before, would the hon. Gentleman for once please use his ears, not his mouth?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is not going to give way.
Mr. Robertson: The Government have come in for much criticism of their stated policy of limiting days at sea. However, the idea—despite its press—is not unique to the Government. The Scottish Fishermen's Organisation, Scotland's largest producer organisation, produced a much more draconian proposal earlier in the summer. It wanted to tie up all boats for one month each year for a while. Although the sentiment is understandable, its practice would have serious implications for the processors. If there were no fresh fish for an entire month, markets would be lost, the consumer would go elsewhere

867
and the market share would be damaged, perhaps permanently. By contract, the Government's plan for staggered days in port throughout the year is a preferable option.
The central problem from which we cannot escape is that fish stocks in the North sea—especially cod and haddock—are under tremendous pressure, despite the recent and welcome quota announcement. I am concerned that the announcement could be premature.
Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasoned speech, although there are arguments on both sides of the question. Does not he think that he was unwise to refuse the invitation of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to attend the rally on Friday? As the Minister knows—I am glad that he has tempered his views in the past year—an all-party approach to the matter has paid dividends in the past. Sir Albert MacQuarrie, who used to represent Banff and Buchan very well, was a doughty fighter on behalf of the fishing industry. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and join representatives of all parties on Friday, not necessarily to attack the Government but to fight to protect the fishing industry? That is all that we ask.
Mr. Robertson: I do not regret my decision, and I shall explain why. As a Scot, I am proud that our capital city of Edinburgh has been privileged by the Prime Minister to hold the European Community summit. I do not think that Scotland's international reputation will be enhanced if every group that has a grievance—regardless of how deeply or widely held— uses the summit, the centrepiece of the presidency, to parade through the streets of Edinburgh. As a Scot, I want Edinburgh to be seen in the best possible light. I want the world to regard Edinburgh positively, and I do not think that such a rally is the way forward.
Before the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made a speech rather than intervened, I was saying that I was concerned that the announcement on the cod and haddock quota was premature. Many of the fish which could be landed next year will barely be larger than the minimum landing size.
David Maclennan, one of the top scientists in this subject and deputy director of the Scottish fishing department's marine laboratory in my constituency, wrote in this week's issue of Fishing News the following warning:
"If the exploitation continues at the same high rate in 1993, it is inevitable that the welcome increase in the spawning stock will not last long—two or three years at most—before being fished out. Thereafter we must expect that the stock will hit rock bottom once again."
David Maclennan is not unique in holding that view.Speaking in Aberdeen on Friday, the much respected chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, my noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, said:
"It would be a disaster if the suggested doubling of the haddock quota led people to believe those concerns of the autumn can now be ignored … far from it. What kind of haddock are we going to see next year?"
Are they the kind that the merchants want, are they the kind the processors want? Will all the fish landed be through the market and not through the back door?
As the Under-Secretary of State said, cod is still a matter of grave concern. I hope that all sectors of the industry—the catchers, the processors and the producer organizations—will talk to each other, away from the crisis atmosphere at the Peterhead summit held in September.
868
There is no point in landing fish for it to be used merely as fish-meal. The fish which is landed must be wanted. All parties in the fishing industry must get together to maximise the economic value of the increased numbers of haddock. No sector of the industry will be forgiven if the fish which is landed in the first part of the year is used for fish-meal while the fishery is still closing early this lime next year.
The lack of the right fish cannot be blamed on the Government or the European Community. We cannot promise imaginary fish. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is wholly irresponsible and reckless. He stomps around the north-east of Scotland, promising fish which are not there. He raises hopes and expectations, safe in the knowledge that he will never have to deliver his promises and boasts.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Robertson: Before I give way, the hon. Gentleman should remember—although it may be hard for him to accept—that it was someone far greater than him who was the last man to perform miracles with fish.
Mr. Salmond: I have not heard that comparison for a while. If the hon. Gentleman can dispense with the insults, he seems to be saying that he is supported by a substantial section of the fishing community in Scotland. Will he name three people in the fishing community who support his current position?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman merely proves that, although we represent seats in the same part of the country, we live in different worlds.
It is perfectly clear that there is too much catching capacity—too many fishermen chasing too few fish. I welcome the Government's conversion to a decommissioning scheme, long championed by the Under-Secretary of State. I accept that it is a limited scheme, but it is a start and it will help. Any scheme which limits catching capacity is a step in the right direction. I regret the time that it has taken for the Government to get this far, especially in the light of the help given to other industries to help them to retract and to face the market—I am thinking in particular of farmers and set-aside.
However, any scheme is better late than never. The fishing industry must realise that if there is too much capacity it is not enough merely to cut that capacity; one also has to control the catching capacity of that which is left. I fear, and regret, that the only way to do that is to limit the number of days the catchers are at sea.
Another central problem that the Government and the industry must tackle is the fact that, with the overall increase in the number of fish, the number of fish just below the minimum landing size will increase. More will be discarded and wasted. The more that I talk to people involved, the clearer it becomes that, with increased engine power and bigger net configurations, whatever the size of the diamond mesh, it closes under pressure and the cod end becomes an impenetrable sheath for undersized fish. I urge my hon. Friend to consider, as a matter of urgency, making square mesh panels mandatory. The industry would welcome that, and I say to fishermen that if, for whatever reason, the Government will not take the step, the industry itself should take it and make square mesh compulsory. That would be in everyone's interests; it

869
would reduce the number of discards and let small fish escape to be caught again another day when they are of a size to be landed.
As always, the industry faces great challenges and uncertainties, with the different sectors looking for different solutions to the same basic common problems. Despite all the criticism, I genuinely and earnestly believe that the Government should be supported. Decommissioning will reduce the catching capacity, and limiting the days at sea will limit the time during which the remaining capacity is in the water. If limitations in the days at sea still allow fishermen to catch their quota—that is the crucial factor—they must accept it as a sensible and appropriate way forward. Preservation of fish stocks is necessary not merely to get us through next week, next month or next year, but for generations to come.
5.1 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) to the Dispatch Box as the Labour party's principal spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and food. He has a background in the subject, and some experience—if my memory serves me correctly, he has ministerial experience—and we welcome him back. As his speech tonight has shown, he has the heart of the industry in mind.
I am happy that the Under-Secretary's opening speech was delivered calmly and rationally, because sometimes we have heard hectoring and hostile opening speeches. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) did not follow his hon. Friend's example.
We are discussing mid-term review of the common fisheries policy, and it is worth recalling the CFP's original general aims. The CFP was designed to achieve stability for all sectors of the industry, and for the consumer. The consumer is often left out of our discussions, yet in some senses the consumer is the most important factor. The industry exists to serve the consumer and to provide a good-quality high-protein food at reasonable prices. We want stability for the processors, who are a vital link in the food chain, and for the catching side of the industry. As the catchers are the primary source of supply, at the start of the chain, it could be argued that they are the most important part of the industry.
Encompassing everything was the need to conserve stocks, based on scientific evidence. We have seen the stocks becoming depleted, the decreasing age profile of the fish and their decreasing quality. Had the CFP come anywhere near achieving any, let alone all, of those objectives, we could have considered it a success; instead, we have had crisis management from year to year. The industry has run into disastrous problems, which have multiplied as each year has passed. We do not seem to reach anything like a long-term solution.
Many people in the industry now question the quality and accuracy of the scientific advice on which the total allowable catch is based. To the layman, the annual numbers game seems based more on ad hoccery than on logical examination. How can the scientists account for the large differences in the total allowable catches from one year to the next? The Minister has confirmed that the TAC proposed for haddock in the North sea is 130,000 tonnes, compared with 60,000 tonnes last year. That is twice as
870
much for next year as for this year—and that is not the first time that there have been such wild fluctuations. The TAC was doubled one year, then halved the year after. I cannot understand how the numbers can change so much from year to year.
Furthermore, we are concerned with more than a simple matter of numbers. The quality of fish has much improved. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South referred to the puny size of the fish. Sadly, like him, I have been worried over the past few months by the size of some of the haddock on the quayside. They must have been stretched to the limit to bring them above the minimum size. I discussed that question this morning not only with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation but with people who go to sea. Not only are there more fish of higher quality, but the haddock has been described as bonnie fish. For the benefit of Hansard,I shall spell that out—I mean "bonnie", not "bony" fish. There is clear evidence that the number and quality of the stocks are increasing. That is to be welcomed.
That brings me to the difficulties now facing the North sea fishermen. We all know that the quota for North sea haddock was extinguished at the end of October. Although it may be too late, we must remember that the industry asked to borrow 15 per cent. of next year's quota, to allow fishing to continue until the end of the year. That would help the catching side and the processors, who depend on supply to remain in business.
I have said outside the House, and have no hesitation in repeating, that normally I would not countenance such a proposition. If there were no increase in the quota for next year, the problems would simply be compounded in 1993. The crisis would be reached in July and August instead of in October. Such an arrangement could not be regarded as a quick fix, or an easy response to the problems. The Government have refused even to consider the claim, and they gave the impression that they did not even try to secure an increase in the quota—although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), sought to suggest otherwise a few days ago.
The Government excused themselves for not trying to increase the quota by saying that there was no scientific advice available. They took refuge in saying that all the talk about there being more fish in the sea was purely anecdotal. It is no consolation to fishermen to tell them that the haddock that they have thrown back over the side is anecdotal. That haddock is real fish. Throwing hundreds of tonnes of dead fish back into the sea—one does not know exactly how many— does nothing for the cause of conservation. Once the fish are caught and are dead, that is it— nothing can be done with them. There must be a better way of managing fishing and conservation.
The TAC for haddock is to be doubled—although the proposals that I have seen will mean that we shall not get as big a proportion of the increase as we might have expected. Nevertheless, the scientific evidence is clear. That evidence must have been available to Ministers in October, as it is now. If it was not, Ministers should have asked the scientists.
Mr. Curry: I do not intervene in a polemic way, because I know that the hon. Gentleman takes the matter seriously. I want to make a serious comment. I am sure that he will remember that I said in the House a year ago that there was a good year class of small haddock, and that we did

871
not want to hammer the young stock so that it would be destroyed. Three quarters of the haddock in the North sea at the beginning of the year are killed, mainly by fishing, by the end of the year. The hon. Gentleman himself described the very small haddock which he thought must have been stretched to reach the minimum landing size. There is more haddock, and there will be an increase in the TAC. The relative increase will come from the non-application of the Hague preference. That addresses the apparent inconsistency in the shares.
Had we obtained the authorisation to bring forward quota, it would have been in small—in some cases, very small—fish, and the danger would have been that we should have been catching precisely the stock on which we depend to go into the spawning stock biomass to furnish the more marketable, better-quality fish for next year and provide longer-term, better opportunities for fishing.
I know that the hon. Gentleman and I subscribe to the same objectives. I have made that point simply to try to explain the position.
Mr. Hughes: I take the Minister's intervention in the spirit in which it was intended. It is not an easy argument. I find it difficult to believe, however, that fish that are mature enough to be caught on 1 January are so immature six or eight weeks beforehand that they cannot be caught. The issue as I see it is that the measurement of fish stocks—in terms of how much there is, the assessment of quality and the forecasting of what might be caught after 1 January—is not done on the basis of random sampling over a day or a week. The size of the TAC that is permissible based on stock size is arrived at on the basis of information that is accumulated and calculated over a longer period. Surely an estimate could have been made in October or at the beginning of November to allow us to reach a conclusion and so consider seriously the request to borrow forward.
As I said, I accept that the matter should not be taken lightly. We should not say, "The easiest thing to do to get the fishermen off their backs is to give them the 15 per cent., and the devil take the consequences." Of course it should not be done like that, but—I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in the best of spirits—there is no doubt that, among fishermen in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere, there is a feeling that the hon. Gentleman did not really care enough to take their claim seriously. That has led to a tremendous loss of confidence in the Government and has dealt a damaging blow to the CFP.
I have seen a document—I do not claim to have read every word of it—entitled "A Better Way Forward", which was presented to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by fishermen from the south-west. Such is the similarity between that document and the representations and information that I have received from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that I would not have known—apart from the geographical locations—that someone else had written it. There is a remarkable consistency of view throughout the United Kingdom.
The problem is one of confidence. Whatever CFP regime comes into force in 1993 and subsequent years, no part of it will work or hang together unless the industry is confident that it will bring justice. Without that confidence, everything will fail. I am not advancing an abstract argument or engaging in an academic exercise here: that lack of confidence has practical damaging results. I cite as an example the illegal landing of fish, I do
872
not know what the extent of it is. I am relying on press reports and— lest someone should wish to throw my remarks back at me—anecdotal evidence. The reports vary. Some say that the illegal landings are small and of no consequence and that we should not worry about them, while others say that masses of fish are being landed illegally.
Wherever the truth lies, I unreservedly condemn all those involved in the handling of illegal fish—whether the fishermen, the buyers or the processors who knowingly take part in the practice. They do nothing but harm to the industry. They make it more difficult for us to represent the fishermen and put their case and, I believe, they damage our negotiating position in the EC.
Some seek to justify such practices on the ground that there is a lack of policing by other member states. They say that only British fishermen are sticking to the rules, that people are compelled into illegal practices only by economic necessity—the need to avoid bankruptcy—and that that frustration and anger lead to episodes such as that at Lochinver. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that he supported that. I do not want to break the all-party consensus, but I must say that I do not think that it is responsible to encourage fishermen to take the law into their own hands. That does no good, and certainly does not help our relations with the French. But these things happen.
United Kingdom haddock quotas have increased tremendously, but the real issue is that our share last year was such that less than 10 per cent. was left for other EC fishing countries. Fishermen are asking this stark and simple question: how, with such a small quota, can the French and whoever else still be catching at a time of year when we have exhausted a much bigger quota? They firmly believe that policing methods are not sufficient to deal with the problem. It is certainly indisputable that no other EC member state has anything like as many inspectors as us. I complain not about the number of inspectors that we have but about the fact that the number of inspectors elsewhere is deficient.
I believe in enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said that we must ensure that enforcement is carried out with the same vigour throughout the Community. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that the number of inspectors is increased, both by individual member states and by the Commission? My hon. Friend and others have advanced the proposition that we ought seriously to consider mutual inspection, with inspectors from one nation's fisheries working alongside those from another nation in their inspection. That would do much to inspire confidence and put paid to the oft-expressed feeling that everyone cheats on quotas. Such cynicism is extremely dangerous.
We all know that the problems of the industry are deep-seated. They have been with us for too many years. Although I am optimistic by nature, I feel that those problems will persist for some time. It has been said before: too many vessels are chasing too few fish. The halcyon days of free-for-all fishing are gone for ever. There has to be management, regulation and the reduction of fishing effort and capacity. I know that that is unpalatable to many fishermen. It is hard to say to people that their livelihood will be affected, but fishermen understand the reality and they want a sensible system for the future.
The tie-up days may be part of the answer but they are not the whole answer—whether what is proposed is a

873
period of 135 days or 190 days, which we have been assured will not be accepted. Whatever the figures, that will not help the industry in the absence of any compensation for the days tied up. Without compensation, we shall be getting nothing more and nothing less than decommissioning by bankruptcy. In farming circles we have a set-aside scheme whereby compensation is paid. I do not see the difference in principle between compensating farmers for setting aside their land and paying compensation in respect of fishing boats that are tied up. It is the same principle, and it ought to be considered.
Apparently the Government have set themselves entirely against any tie-up compensation scheme. At least there is some movement on a decommissioning scheme, however. They are beginning to set aside—no pun intended—the hang-ups of the past. Their earlier decommissioning scheme was a disaster. They were ripped off and had their fingers burnt. At least they now have a commitment to a decommissioning scheme, even if it is nothing like good enough. They should sit down with the industry yet again, draw from its knowledge and expertise and then find the necessary money. I cannot quantify what will be required.
The Minister intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East to ask whether he endorsed the figure in the House of Commons Select Committee report of three, four or five times the money that the Government have set aside. I would not set a figure on it, but that money ought not to be the hurdle over which the Government cannot leap. We should consider the matter and find the money.
We must be sure that British fishermen are not targeted or adversely affected compared with other EC fishermen. There must be comparability of treatment. It is essential that we achieve a common fisheries policy that will stand the test of time. That is what we are all looking for. If the Minister can achieve that, he will have our support and we wish him well in his endeavours to do the best for the industry. If he comes back with a satisfactory deal, he will not find us lacking in praise for him.
If the Minister fails, he must understand that that failure will reverberate throughout the industry, and a valuable resource and whole communities that depend on fishing will be devastated. I am sure that the Minister does not want that to happen. Indeed, no hon. Member would want that to happen. We therefore hope that the Minister tries seriously to find a system that will work which is beneficial and in which there is justice for all.
In conclusion, I apologise to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is to reply to the debate. Like his colleague, I must be out of the House when the winding-up speeches are made. Therefore, I shall not be here to listen to him. However, I hope that he accepts that I do not in any way mean to be discourteous to him.
5.20 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: We hear much criticism about Britain's commitment to Europe. However, the European nations should be reminded that, if Britain had not been prepared to give her territorial fishing waters to this common policy, these nations would
874
have been bereft of any fishing waters. That point should be repeated on every occasion. As a Member of the European Parliament, I am sick of listening to Frenchmen and people from Germany saying that Britain does not give proper commitment to the fishing policy, the common agricultural policy and so on. We have made a vital contribution, without which the common fishing policy would not exist.
I know that the Minister of State was a Member of the European Parliament for many years. He knows how the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers work. He has a very solemn and heavy responsibility in respect of the issues that he will discuss in the very near future.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr.Hughes) said, the same message is coming from fishermen all over the United Kingdom. There is no difference in the message of the fishermen from Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. I am concerned about three main issues: the quota levels for 1993; the position about sea fish conservation; and the general review of the CAP operations.
As I understand it, on 23 November 1992, EC officials in Brussels agreed three things: fishing for cod, haddock and other white fish will, from 1 January 1993, be reduced by 20 per cent. over four years; the quota system already operating will be determined by the amount of stock, or projected amount of stock, available; fishing for plaice and sole will be cut by 15 per cent. over the next four years.
Mr. Curry: I think that the figures to which the hon. Gentleman is referring are the targets for cutting the capacity of vessels. They are not the figures that relate to stocks. There would be a 20 per cent. cut over four years in the fleet targets for demersal vessels—that is, for white fish. There will be a 15 per cent. cut over four years for the beamers—that is, for plaice and sole. That does not refer to the stocks. I thought that it might be helpful if I made that clear at this stage.
Rev. Ian Paisley: If the Minister had listened to me, he would have noticed that I said that the quota system already operating would be determined by the amount of stock and projected amount of stock available. The Minister should have kept that in mind.
I understand that those cuts, no matter how the Minister argues them, are less than those first proposed. However, they they are more than the industry in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can sustain. That is the point that the Minister should take on board.
There are already shortages of fish, and that pushes up prices for the consumer and puts Britain's fishermen on the dole. The quota system has restricted United Kingdom vessels from landing sufficient catch to meet national demands. Fishermen who transgress the quota face heavy fines.
Once again, Britain is at a serious disadvantage. While we are imposing the single market rules, regulations and policies strictly and with extreme efficiency, we are being penalised by other nations which are not policing the regulations. There is no doubt about that. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that the policing operations should be mixed among the nations of Europe so that we can see what they are doing would mean that we would have some confidence in a fair and level playing

875
field. We hear calls for a level playing field in the Community in industry and commerce. We need a level tidal mark for the British fishing industry. I should like the Minister of State to consider the point about the Irish sea, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he would deal with it.
It seems that the quota level for whiting catch in the Irish sea is proposed to be cut by 35 per cent. Northern Ireland will get 14 per cent. of the catch. In effect, that reduces the tonnage available to the United Kingdom from the Irish sea stock to 1,400 tonnes. If those figures are correct, that is an all-time low. Those figures are unviable they will wreck Northern Ireland's fishing industry.
Who is defending Northern Ireland's position in Europe? Will a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office accompany the Minister of State to Europe to remind him that Northern Ireland fishermen have great difficulties? It is strange that the Minister of State's boss refuses to meet a deputation from the Northern Ireland fishing industry. No wonder there is great concern in Northern Ireland when the industry's voice cannot be heard.
The Northern Ireland sea fishing industry is largely dependent on the Irish sea. The Northern Ireland fleet is concentrated at the three main ports of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. The representatives of those areas are in the House, and no doubt they will be pressing home some of the points that have been put to me.
I have been told that the fleet comprises more than 260 vessels over 10 m overall length. During 1991, the value of landing of sea fish at Northern Ireland ports was down by £1·4 million. That is a terrible loss for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. More than 2,400 people are employed in the sea fishing industry, including people employed in the fishing fleet and related ancillary sectors such as processing, wholesaling, boat building and harbour duties.
As Northern Ireland has the worst level of unemployment in the United Kingdom, the Minister must be concerned that those jobs are protected. When we talk to fishermen about sea fish conservation, they say that we are talking more about the destruction of their jobs than about conserving them.
British legislation gives officials the power to tie up British vessels when they believe that stocks are low. The legislation is applied according to the strictest possible interpretation of the European Community's conservation policy. That application is extremely invidious and oppressive to Northern Ireland when proper consideration is given to the low quota and projected quota given to Northern Ireland.
After the meeting in Brussels, the Irish Fisheries Minister, Dr. Michael Woods, said that he had won special dispensation which would avoid cuts in the Irish fishing fleet. So the southern Ireland Minister can come out of a Brussels meeting and boast that he has won a special dispensation which would avoid cuts in the Irish fishing fleet. That breakthrough for the Republic of Ireland came about after years of pressure by the Republic's Government. What pressure are Her Majesty's Government putting on the European Community to protect the jobs of Northern Ireland fishermen?
Small communities in Northern Ireland such as Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass depend on fishing to survive. On 20 November, Lord Arran met councillors and fishermen from Newtownards and Portagovie to listen to their complaints. Was that meeting reported to the Minister? Was he given a list of those complaints? Was he
876
told that Portagovie is a major fishing port with 97 boats and a turnover of £7 million last year? Was he told that, in Portavogie, employment in the fishing industry provides about 800 jobs in the village, 400 on the boats and a further 400 in associated factories? Was he told that much capital funding has been invested in the harbour over the years—£750,000 in 1955 and a further £5 million in 1985?
The right hon.Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was a Member of the European Parliament with me at the time when representations were made and money was provided for Europe to help. Money has been invested in the fishing industry. Will that investment now be lost?
The EC regulations allow foreign boats from Spain, France and Belgium to fish the Irish sea, although there is not enough fish to sustain the local fleet. Already, 10 to 12 boats are tied up because their owners cannot achieve enough catch to sustain them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that the fishermen rightly say that their quota is larger than that for the ships from the other countries, but if their men have to tie up, why can the other countries continue fishing? The Minister must come clean and tell us the reason for that, because it goes to the very heart of this debacle.
The problem is exacerbated because some countries do not enforce the regulations—allowing, as in the case of some Spanish boats operating on a British licence, the taking of small fish, thus further reducing the available adult population. Many of the remaining boats face dire circumstances. They have made heavy capital investment, and they do not earn enough to pay for the borrowing—never mind make a living. That is the fact of the matter. The fishermen have their backs against the wall.
The Government must take effective action, riot oppressive action. They must listen to the fears of the fishermen, and produce an effective management regime which offers the opportunity to fish and preserve stock. To make the industry viable once again, the fleet at Portavogie would need to be reduced by 30 per cent. That is the figure that the fishermen have given me.
I am pleased to tell the Minister that I will not be absent when he responds; I will be here to listen to his answers. I understand that hon. Members have other duties, and I am not passing any judgment on them. Many a time I have had to apologise for being absent, but I will be in the House tonight to listen. I will be using the ears which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) told another hon. Member to use. I will be using my ears, and I may have to use my mouth as well if the Minister does not give me satisfactory answers.
Many owners are prepared to opt out of the industry. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that, if compensation is given to farmers through set-aside, and if the fishing boats cannot earn enough to make them viable because of regulations over which they have no control whatever, the Government must start a scheme to take out of commission those boats that cannot be managed on a viable basis. The time has come for the Government to provide the money. I call on the Government to make the necessary funds available to finance a proper decommissioning scheme.
Can the Minister explain what happened to the amendment that was to be made to the conservation Bill? My papers show that, during discussion of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, the Minister said that, if the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) would withdraw his new clause,

877
"the Government will table an amendment in another place to insert those provisions in the Bill."—[Official Report, 14 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 1027.]
I understand that the proposed new clause was not moved, but Lord Howe explained how that would be covered without having an amendment.
Mr. Curry: If the hon. Member can stay even longer tonight, he will have the opportunity to vote for that amendment which fulfils the Government's pledge. The fact is that we tabled an amendment in the other place which fulfilled that pledge. The amendment is complex in form. I am willing to let the hon. Gentleman have the long dissertation which my lawyers produced to explain why it had to be in such a form. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the practical effect of the amendment is precisely as I promised to the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad of that. I will be in the House for as long is it sits, for one reason—I cannot get home, because there is no aircraft to take me after the House rises. I will be here, and I should be grateful if the Minister could give me what he has promised, because the matter has been raised with me by people who are worried about it. As the Minister knows, I do not put this in a critical way. I want an explanation that I can give those people.
Mr. Curry: I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking me to write to him with a detailed explanation. The matter is complicated for debate. I undertake that I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Rev Ian Paisley: I will weigh up what the hon. Gentleman says when we come to the amendment.
I want to ask the Minister about the Hague preference and how it affects the fishing quota regime, especially for the Northern Ireland fishermen. According to the fishermen who have lobbied me, Northern Ireland is suffering because our so-called EC partner, the Republic of Ireland, applied the Hague preference against our fishing rights to cod, plaice and white fish.
There is no intergovernmental co-operation, although we are told that we have wonderful co-operation with the Irish Republic. We have an Anglo-Irish agreement. Now we are told that, despite that agreement, the Irish Government are unable to fulfil their fishing quota, yet we are not permitted to obtain that quota, which we could very well do with. I ask the Minister to apply himself to that difficulty tonight.
This is an important debate. We are all worried about the matter. It goes to the heart of the well-being of the fishing communities. Everyone knows that no community around our coasts is as tightly knit as the fishing communities. There is a peculiarity about fishing communities: they deserve the Minister's best. I warn him that, if he does not give them his best when he goes to the negotiations in Europe—if he comes home and tells us that he could not get what we know he must get to allow the industry to continue to be viable—he will be in serious trouble.
5.40 pm
Mr. James Wallace: In both his opening and concluding remarks the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the unity of
878
interest of the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom. The names of the ports may be different but his descriptions of an industry with its back to the wall and of the anger of fishermen who, while their boats are tied up, see continental fishermen fishing in close waters apply to fishermen throughout the United Kingdom.
I also share the hon. Gentleman's frustration that there is no aeroplane which will take me back home after the hour at which the House rises. So there is common feeling in the debate on many matters.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir Hector Monro), reminded the House of the tragedies with which the fishing communities have become all too well acquainted. The number of occasions on which the House expresses sympathy with communities who have lost people at sea reminds us of the price paid for the supply of an important commodity.
For generations, fishermen have been acquainted with the ups and downs of the fortunes of the industry. But few would quibble with the claim that today the industry faces a dire crisis in terms of morale, its current fortunes and its prospects. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) queried whether some Opposition Members, and especially the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), lived in the same world as he did. I wonder what world he lives in if he has not caught the mood in the fishing industry.
Today a flotilla of fishing vessels is accompanying the royal yacht Britannia to make their protests known. We have also seen the blockade of Lochinver today and on Friday fishermen from ports throughout the United Kingdom, including 54 from my constituency in a chartered plane, will come to Edinburgh to demonstrate their fury and justifiable anger with a Government who impose unreasonable restrictions on the way in which fishermen can prosecute their livelihood.
The protests show the sense of need, anger and crisis in the industry. So the debate comes at a critical time, against the background not only of the protests but of the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy and yet again the annual review of our total allowable catches. There was an exhaustive discussion of the mid-term review in one of the European Standing Committees recently. I do not wish to go over that ground again, but since that time there has been a meeting of the Council of Ministers. While relative stability was affirmed, some weasel words were attached to it in the original draft, which seemed to qualify it in several respects. I know that the Minister was worried about that. Perhaps he could tell us what progress has been made in taking those words out.
I believe that the north of Scotland box has been established for a continuing period. The Minister knows my views on that. We should have liked further measures to be taken in that respect, but undoubtedly that is an argument to which we shall return on future occasions.
Mr. Curry: I thought that I would give the hon. Gentleman an appetiser. He is right. We have safeguarded the Shetland box.
Mr. Wallace: If the Minister thinks that because of that I shall let him off lightly later, he has another think coming.
We also wish to know what progress has been made on the multi-annual basis for total allowable catches. This evening we are also debating the TACs for 1993. They are

879
a little like a shopping list. I hope that the Minister will be well informed about the views of the House before he goes to the critical negotiations. We may say things which will strengthen his arm in the negotiations.
We welcome the increase in the North sea haddock TAC. However, as I said to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, we urge the Government to keep down the volume allocated to an industrial fishery. The more fish that is taken for the industrial fishery, the less there will be for fishing for human consumption. The Minister must also take into account that it may yet be necessary to obtain some haddock from Norway in the negotiations which have still to be completed.
Why does the TAC for Clyde herring appear to be so low? There is a strong argument for maintaining the status quo.
The west coast fishery seems to be a hardy annual. There is only a precautionary TAC for hake, monkfish and megrim, and there is insufficient scientific evidence that the TAC should not be increased to provide fishing opportunities for the many fishing communities who want to fish those species.
It has already been accepted in the debate that saithe is in poor shape. However, there is some evidence that it is a clean fishery and that large fish are being caught. That begs the question whether the scientific evidence justifies the severe reductions in saithe fishing. I would appreciate the Minister' comments on that.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, it would be helpful if the TAC agreed for Irish sea whiting was such that it was not necessary to invoke the Hague preference rules, which would disadvantage United Kingdom fishermen.
We await the outcome of the negotiations with Norway on mackerel and herring. Last year the Minister achieved a satisfactory arrangement. Until last year there appeared to be a creeping increase in the additional amount that Norway sought each year. I hope that that will be resisted again this year. If the Minister succeeds in doing that, he can expect plaudits and congratulations.
Mr. Curry: I intervene in the constructive spirit of the debate. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Norwegian negotiations will be particularly difficult this year because of the European Economic Area agreement. The Swiss vote means that the agreement will not proceed on 1 January. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already said that we have asked the Commission to adjust its proposals on imports and tariffs, because they are clearly affected. The Norwegians are fairly twitchy on the matter as a result of agreement and the negotiations will be difficult. I am sure that the objectives which he is about to outline are those which we shall undertake to fulfil.
Mr. Wallace: I am grateful for that explanation. There is a feeling that concessions have already been ma de to Norway on the EEA arrangements and that there should be no duplication. People sometimes use the term "trading paper fish", but real fish should not be added to the paper fish. I am sure that the Minister will seek to achieve that objective.
It is useful to recall that after the December meeting of the Council of Ministers last year it was acknowledged that the deal secured by Ministers was a reasonable one. I recall urging Ministers to grasp the opportunity to sit down with leaders of the fishing industry and co-operate
880
on future policy. Twelve months ago, we see that that opportunity was tossed away, with the resulting appalling consequences for fishermen, their families and their communities.
Only a few weeks after Ministers managed to get that deal, we at long last had the decommissioning package unveiled. But, as has already been said, it was too little, too late. One did not have to be a cynic to note its timing just a few weeks before the general election. One did not need more than a fleeting acquaintance with the industry to recognise that the amount on offer was too little. One did not need to read the fine print too closely to note the strings which the Government attached to the offer. I am sure that many hon. Members who represent fishing communities will agree that the Government's insistence on effort limitation, or tie-up days, was one of the most contentious strings.
The Government will prohibit people from pursuing their livelihoods on certain days and, if one takes stock of what they are doing in this Session, that takes a fair bit of brass neck. The other day, the Home Secretary told us that the Government will introduce legislation in this Parliament to allow shopowners to trade on Sundays, but they have introduced legislation in the same Session to stop fishermen from fishing on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. We should be under no illusions about what their legislation will do—it will stop people from earning their livelihood, and that is what has built up such resentment in the fishing industry.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is normally extremely sensible, but the comparison between shopping and fishing was the daftest that I have heard him make for a long time. No natural resources are at stake in shopping—we are not short of customers or of the real estate to put shops on. Fishermen are fishing for a natural resource—that is the problem.
As I have made clear throughout the passage of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, we are not depriving fishermen of their livelihoods. We intend them to catch the quota, the whole quota, and nothing but the quota. There is nothing in the Bill to stop them from catching their legitimate entitlement, and I can categorically give that pledge.
Mr. Wallace: Clearly, I have touched a raw nerve. The Minister's answer begs the question: why does one need a tie-up? If they fish the quota, the whole quota and nothing but the quota, fishermen could fish 365 days of the year and it would be up to them to manage their quota over the 12 months. By that answer, the Minister has shot a hole through his tie-up proposals.
There is a connection between fishing and shopping. My argument was about the opportunity to pursue one's livelihood and it is right to put it in a context that people will understand. One sector of the community will be allowed greater opportunities to trade, while another vital part of our community will be denied that opportunity.
We were relieved to hear that the Government intend to resist the Commission's tie-up proposals. I wondered how they would square the circle if they did not intend to resist the proposals, given the Minister's undertaking on 14 July that there would be no increase in restrictions in 1993. We should not be carried away by the fact that the Government have given us that understanding. While they say that they will not accept the proposals, and that they

881
will argue against the Community tie-up scheme, we are left with the home-made scheme established by the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.
What has angered fishermen more than anything else is the fact that there are restrictions on British fishermen, but their European counterparts will not be subject to similar restrictions. There are enough let-out clauses in the Community proposals to mean that, even if the scheme were carried through, it would mainly affect British fisherman, and particularly Scottish fishermen. We should not lose sight of the fact that European fishermen will be able to carry on fishing when British fishermen will not.
Tie-up rules were first introduced because of a shortage of cod and haddock. No one is claiming that the cod TAC has increased significantly—there is still a problem there. The haddock TAC has increased enormously, but the Government are still applying the tie-up rules. Will there be sufficient opportunity for British fishermen to catch their quota, their whole quota and nothing but the quota? If anyone can do the figures before 9.30 pm, it would be interesting to find out what proportion of the value of the total catch is contributed by haddock, for those fishermen to whom the haddock catch is significant. I suspect that fishermen derive their living from many other species, which they also ought to have time to fish. It is not merely a question of the increase in haddock; there are other stocks.
Is the tie-up scheme intended as a conservation measure —as the Minister says, and as Earl Howe said in another place last week—or is it part and parcel of the Government trying to get their multi-annual guidance programme targets? We should not overlook the fact that, while 20 per cent. has been negotiated, which is less than was originally proposed, the backlog from the existing five year target also has to be met. That means that United Kingdom fishermen will have to bear a larger burden of the reduction in capacity than those in almost every other EC country.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Except Greece.
Mr. Wallace: Yes, apart from Greece. The Government have not said how they will balance effort limitation or tie-up days with decommissioning. If they say that both will contribute to meeting that target, we ought to know how many days tie-up equals how many hundred horsepower of capacity. Otherwise we shall be led a merry dance and there will be no way to quantify or to make an objective assessment of the Government proposals. The Under-Secretary of State omitted to answer that question, and I hope that the Minister of State will come up with a convincing answer.
As my right hon Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in an intervention, the Government are hooked on tie-up and have become blind to every other option. We do not hear much about square mesh panels or gear options these days. The Government even managed to apply the one-net rule insensitively. The Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office suggested to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that his fishermen could return to port to change nets before they went back out to sea. That. observation received the proper reaction in fishing circles.
882
Does the Minister honestly believe that his policies will achieve conservation? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that in many cases there will be decommissioning through bankruptcy. Apart from the fact that the scheme is an ad hoc way to bring about decommissioning—it is likely to bankrupt those who are most heavily indebted, which could lead to an aging fleet—those who administer the bankruptcies are unlikely to surrender licences. The chances are that they will be passed on to be aggregated with someone else's licence. That is how fishermen from other countries obtain British licences. At the conference on the common fisheries policy in Shetland earlier this year, someone asked why France does not have that problem. Why do British fishermen not buy up French licences? One of the Commission's representatives answered that question. Even though there is nothing in French statute to prevent it, the French do not give their licences away.
The only reason why we have Spanish vessels fishing under flags of convenience is that someone has sold them a licence. One cannot blame fishermen for doing so if they are under tremendous financial pressure and Government policies are putting them under that pressure. The fact that the Government do not propose to tackle the running sore of foreign vessels buying up British licences is the most glaring omission in their proposals for reform of the common fisheries policy. The whole purpose of that policy and the principle of relative stability is undermined by such practices.
Mr. Curry: I am as sensitive as anyone else to that extremely sensitive issue. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants me to take measures to prevent fishermen from selling their licences to foreign owners? That is the key of the argument. How would that square with European Community rules, to which his party is particularly attached?
Mr. Wallace: The underlying principle of the common fisheries policy and of the principle of relative stability is the allocation of national quotas. In many respects it could be said to be the converse of what the Community has sought in almost every other area in which we are pursuing the single market. The Community has reached an agreement that there will be national quotas. I understand that a recent court decision affirmed that one can distribute quotas on a national basis. One cannot allow leakages to continue if the integrity of that quota system is to be maintained. It is the responsibility of the Community to sort that out, but we have had no lead from the British Government, who hold the presidency, in proposing any constructive ideas as to how the Community might do that.
Mr. Salmond: Given the concern that is shared in all parts of the House, is it not rather disturbing that the action on flags of convenience proposed in the original Commission document a year ago seems to have disappeared from the most recent document that we have seen, which was produced during the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Wallace: That is very disturbing. I have debated the problem of flags of convenience often enough with the Minister to know that he is concerned about it. However, the real matter of concern to the House is that if we do not

883
raise the issue, as the country most aggrieved by it, who will? It has not been raised under the British presidency and we have had no satisfactory explanation why.
It is self-evident that the industry is confused and angered by Government policy. I assure the Minister that if he returns with a sensible package on next year's TACs which meets many of our concerns, he will be given due credit for it. However, he should be under no illusion that that alone will be enough.
The abandonment, even tonight, of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill—perhaps a forlorn hope—would be the most sensible thing that the Minister could do to help the fishing industry. So long as the Minister refuses to do that, he will be left with an industry which has every right to feel angry about a Government who, so far as it can judge, and in reality, have basically sold out its interests.
6.1 pm
Mr. David Harris: As has already been said tonight, too often we must start speeches about fishing by marking a tragedy in our respective constituencies. I know that the House would wish to convey its sympathy to the families of the five Cornishmen from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who were lost at sea last week. I know that the hon. Gentleman has had to leave the Chamber, but I know that we would like to convey our sympathies, through him, to the families in the Padstow area who lost men in two tragedies within the space of a single week. One can hardly think of anything worse that could happen to such a tight-knit fishing community than to suffer two tragedies in such a short time.
It is always a tradition in such debates to consider the problems from a constituency point of view. That is natural, and it is right and proper that we speak up for our fishermen. Perhaps I could start, however, by speaking up for a fishery that is a long way from us, although I believe that I am the Member nearest to it—the Falklands fishery.
I am sure that various hon. Members have received representations from the Falkland Islands Government about the threat that that fishery could face because of an agreement between the European Commission and the Argentine, which has been initialled by a Commissioner without the backing of our Government.
I have had the privilege to visit the Falklands and to study that fishery, which is managed well. It is perhaps significant that £6 million a year is spent on research on and management of that important resource. Therefore, the Falkland Islands Government are disturbed, to put it mildly, that, apparently, under the new agreement a number of boats from the Community, particularly from Spain and Portugal—which is no surprise to anyone—are likely to go down to the Argentine waters that abut the Falklands waters and fish without restriction. That would have serious implications for the neighbouring Falklands fishery, because squid pay no respect to lines on maps, any more than cod, haddock or any other species do. I. hope that my hon. Friend will take up this issue with the Commission; perhaps he will reply to my concerns tonight.
At home, it is important to consider some of the issues that are, to put it mildly, worrying Cornish fishermen. In the past two weeks, we have witnessed the premature closure of the hake fishery. Suddenly, without warning, that fishery was closed. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, which is responsible for managing the
884
sectoral quota, estimates that fishermen still have about 16 tonnes of hake to catch. To the uninitiated, that may not seem a big deal, but it is equivalent to fish worth £100,000. Cornish fishermen could well do with that money, particularly in the current economic climate.
The fishery has been closed because others have overshot. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) was right to draw attention to the fact that there has been considerable overshooting in the non-sector. I suspect that that is due, in part, to the Spanish boats and the belated returns from Spain for hake caught.
Mike Townsend, the chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, believes that his fishermen are being penalised for their good management of the sectoral quota. They have tried to maintain that fishery right through the year, but, because others have managed it badly, they are being penalised and the fishery has been closed. Its closure will not just affect Cornwall.
When I raised this issue with my hon. Friend the Minister at Question Time last week, he said that, if there was a single fish to be caught, the fishery could be reopened. I should like my hon. Friend to check the figures, because I understand that there are still fish to be caught. We seem to be heading towards an overshoot of the hake allocation, but I believe that the closure of the fishery was not only precautionary but premature.
Cornish fishermen have managed their own fishery superbly in accordance with all the guidance laid down by the Ministry, and it is unfair on them, and no doubt on others, for that fishery to be closed suddenly. I demand of the Minister that he confirms that that penalisation will not carry forward to next year. I hope that the fishermen will be allowed to catch extra fish to compensate for the fish they have lost. I hope that the sectoral quota for next year will not be cut as a result of my hon. Friend's decision, or that of his officials, to close the fishery.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend knows that I sent him a brief note about this. It is true that the hake sector was approaching the point at which we had to close the fishery, because it was clear that it would be exhausted. I have a list of all the closures around the coast, which I do not wish to go into. However, it shows that a decision to close is reached when it is near certain that, by the time the results come in, a sector is at, or in some cases over, quota. The United Kingdom has got quite a strong record of going over quota.
On the latest figures for hake that date from Monday—there is a gap of two to three weeks before all the figures come in—the sector was taking 98 per cent. of the quota and the non-sector was taking 93 per cent. Therefore, the landings at that point—the whole quota allocation—had reached 6,797 tonnes against an allocation of 7,140 tonnes. Given the necessary time lag, it is certain that the quota would be met.
I accept that, in some cases, it is the non-sector that catches the fish, and that the producer organisations suffer, but in some cases the POs appear to go over the top of the allocation. We try to organise the guidelines on catches sensibly, but no one can tell how much fish a man will catch on a particular trip.
I have two points to make about the compensatory mechanism. First, nobody's track record suffers because he has been obliged to take less than he might otherwise

885
have taken. Secondly, those who have gone over the quota must pay back in the subsequent year to those who were forced to stop fishing under the quota.
Mr. Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear. As he said, he did so in a note earlier today.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned Ireland and the Hague preference. There is no doubt that Ireland got a good deal from the agreement on the multi-annual guidance programme in its targets for reducing the effort of the member states' fleets. O that we could have had the same deal. However, my concern is not confined to that aspect. I am worried about how Ireland is building up its fleet and pressing, on the basis of the Hague preference, its need for extra quota. This worries not only hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland but fishing interests in the south-west.
We have discussed the Hague preference many times in the House, and it featured largely in the debate in Standing Committee A when we discussed the mid-term review. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are thoroughly familiar with the Hague preference, but I remind you that it was a political deal—there is no other way to describe it—struck before we entered the common fisheries policy. It was a trade-off, as most such issues are.
Some parts of the Community were given a special status because it was said that they were particularly dependent on fishing, and other regions were denied it. It is a continuing matter not just of controversy but of discontent, particularly in the south-west and other parts of England—
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Including Humberside.
Mr. Harris: Certainly. We can all name our own areas which were denied that status and look to other parts of the United Kingdom with envy. Scotland has special status, and good luck to it. But it cannot be said that Cornwall is any less dependent on fishing than many parts of Scotland. It was simply a crude political deal.
I have never been corrected in the past when I have said that, surprisingly, that deal was signed by the present Lord Owen, who was at the time the Member of Parliament for Plymouth and a Foreign Office Minister. He signed it in the latter capacity because fishing was then negotiated by the Foreign Office. Responsibility for fisheries was rightly taken away from the Foreign Office and given to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord Owen dealt an awful blow to the fishing industry in the south-west, because the consequences of our being denied the Hague preference did not lead simply to a six-mile limit, compared to the 12-mile limit in force in many parts of the country: it goes through to the present day. Grants were paid to our detriment, and it is now being operated in the form of the preferential deal that Ireland is trying to negotiate on the basis that it has Hague agreement status. That is terribly wrong.
The problem should have been dealt with in the mid-term review. I know that the Minister would argue that, overall, it is in the United Kingdom's interest that we should maintain Hague agreement preference for certain parts of the country. I have heard that argument before. That is all right, but it is doubly unfair to areas such as Cornwall, which have been denied that assistance. In. considering new mechanisms proposed by the European
886
Community, I urge my hon. Friend to redress the balance so that areas dependent on fishing, which have been denied the advantages of Hague agreement status for all these years, are given what they are entitled to.
On the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about flag of convenience vessels or quota hoppers—call them what you will. We regard it as a missed opportunity of our presidency, as the Government should have taken a political lead on the issue to get a resolution—
Sir Teddy Taylor: To suggest what?
Mr. Harris: To suggest, during the presidency, that we should at least try to reach an agreement with the other member states to outlaw the terrible practice of countries transferring their boats to our register.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I make common cause on that issue, because the ruling of the European Court of Justice torpedoed the Government's laudable but belated attempts to deal with the issue on the basis of British legislation through section 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which got rid of quota hoppers. But when we lost that central part of the case before the European Court, some of those quota hoppers returned to our register, with all the consequences we know about.
That brings me to the vexed question of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only thing that we have in common on that issue is our belief that the 630 Members of Parliament can do absolutely nothing about it? Although we all scream, complain and moan, the plain fact is that the European Court overturned a law that was passed through this Parliament, and we are utterly powerless.
Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend's assessment of the position is right, but I do not accept that Members of Parliament and the Government can do nothing about it. The Government should have done something about it when they held the presidency. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend will contain himself for a second, I shall tell him that our job is to press the Government to take action, through the presidency, to try to achieve a political arrangement within the Council of Ministers to deal, once and for all, with the pernicious practice of quota hopping. That is what I have been urging the Minister to do. I would have welcomed some support from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. That is the only way forward.
The Minister will confirm that our European partners have had a change in attitude. I have been fighting the battle for nearly 13 years. Whereas, at the beginning, they did not want to know about it, at least a number of other member states have now woken up to the dangers of that practice to their own fishing interests. We should have capitalised on that during the mid-term review.
I know that it was not done simply because the Government were afraid of opening up, during their presidency, a huge Pandora's box of fishing issues to the United Kingdom's detriment. I do not think that I am misstating the case. They wanted a fairly limited mid-term review, and I disagree with them on that point. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that

887
we have missed an opportunity at least to try to get a resolution to a problem that has bedeviled the fishing industry.
It is not simply a question of boats coming on our register, fishing against our quotas and fishing in our waters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would put it. We have a problem with the multi-annual guidance programme, because some of those boats have returned to our register. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government could have told the Commission, "We have reduced our fees," and then whispered, "because we have got rid of 100 wretched Spanish boats so that the number in the fleet has been reduced." That argument has been denied us, so the Government have had to consider other ways to meet the multi-annual guidance programme. As we all know, they have failed to do so until now. Therefore, they have been forced, wrongly, to adopt the tying-up policy.
To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I believe that tying-up has more to do with meeting our MAGP than true conservation. I have a common cause with the hon. Gentleman in that I have opposed the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, and will continue to do so. It does not meet this country's true conservation needs. I shall not repeat all the arguments, but I believe that the tying-up policy is unfair and unworkable.
I quarrel with some of my good friends in the fishing industry when they say that the answer lies almost completely in a decommissioning scheme. I do not buy that argument. The Government are correct to argue that, if one places total reliance on decommissioning, those left in the industry will intensify their efforts and fish, if not in all the space created, in much of it. I accept that other methods are needed. I agree that the figure of £25 million is too low, but that is not the fault of the Minister. We should take up that matter with the Treasury, where the constraint lies, not with the Ministry of Agriculture.
What are the answers to the central issue of how to conserve fish and obtain a better balance between increasing catching capacity and declining fish stocks? Decommissioning should play a greater role in achieving that balance. I also agree with Opposition Members who said that gearing, net sizes and the technical measures could undoubtedly make a greater contribution.
However, we should consider another factor. I have been advancing this argument to the industry ever since the impressive rally in Westminster hall. I said then that the Bill would be passed even though neither I nor those at the rally would want it to be—I suspect that it will pass through its final stages tonight. However, even at this late hour, the industry should produce measures that it considers preferable to tying up—I know that many people are doing so. It should consider the designation of closed areas, particularly during spawning time, so that boats do not fish there then. That would be a positive conservation measure, in tune with the wishes of many fishermen. When I discussed the subject with them, they said that they used to do so on a voluntary basis years ago.
I plead with the Minister, even at this late hour—the Bill will no doubt be enacted, but I do not want the Act to be implemented—to begin meaningful discussions with the industry, as sections within it want to do so. My hon. Friend should make his experts available so that there can be sensible discussions about policies other than tying up. I am afraid that he will not do so and may, in the new year,
888
introduce orders to implement the tying—up policy below the 1991 levels of effort. If he does introduce those orders, I shall, with sadness, vote against them.
6.24 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I generally agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), but I emphasise that we faced the EC Factortame judgment largely because of the slow and clumsy way in which the Government framed the legislation. Their crucial failure was to allow the Spanish vessels to get a foothold and then use that fact to appeal to the European Court. That was a mistake made by no other European country, so Spain does not have a base anywhere else from which to launch its appeal. That has been the problem in the past, and the Government must take responsibility for that failure.
The debate is being held while the fishing industry is in an atmosphere of gloom. I do not think that the debate will add much good cheer before Christmas to an industry that is in crisis. In various parts of the country the industry still has quota to catch—for example, the Grimsby cod quota—but the fishing has been abruptly stopped by Government intervention.
An increasing number of vessels are already being tied up even before the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill is enacted and implemented. According to the documents that we are discussing, the Commission wants to increase its role and powers; it wants to take more responsibility for regulation away from national Government in defiance of the principle of subsidiarity. Increasingly, Europe is giving us mechanistic, rigid structures. Barmy measures that are not suited to local circumstances will become more common if the Commission is allowed to do what it wants.
The United Kingdom Government are desperately trying to rectify the mistake that they made in delaying the introduction of a proper decommissioning scheme so that our industry could be restructured in a managed way. That delay means that the Government are now required to try to catch up, using the desperate measure of imposing on the industry the authoritarian regime set out in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. They are attempting to restructure the industry through bankruptcy. Their policy is to stop fishermen fishing by driving them to bankruptcy as they are unable to make an adequate living.
To add to those follies and problems, we have what the Minister calls "successful" negotiations on capacity. If he considers the negotiations successful, he must be using Euro-speak. I do not know why he did not use the phrase "game, set and match" on his return from the Brussels negotiations. If that is what he considers to be success, I should like to hear his definition of failure.
In the press release on the agreed fishing fleet reductions the Minister states that they
"will ensure that the burden adjustment is equitably shared."
Yet other states have come away from those negotiations with lower and much more achievable targets than have the Government and this nation. The reduction in gross tonnage faced by the United Kingdom fleet will be 19 per cent. I do not think that many people have noticed that the figure will be more than 19 per cent.—28 per cent.—if we include the penalty for the reductions that we have not achieved in the multi-annual guidance programme. That is the second largest reduction requirement; only that of Greece is higher.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has mixed up the figures. The figure of 19 per cent. refers to the cuts with the backlog—without the backlog, the figure is 10 per cent. The 28 per cent. is mythical.
Mr. Mitchell: Even if I accept that point—I shall think about it and may argue with the Minister later—the estimates for percentage changes in gross registered tonnage give us a 19 per cent. reduction, France an 8 per cent. reduction, Denmark 6 per cent., Italy 7 per cent. and Spain 4 per cent. Spain has a huge, marauding armada—the biggest fleet in the Community—which is largely unpoliced. Many of its vessels have secret fish rooms in which to conceal the catches. The vessels land in Spain where the catches are not properly controlled—a sort of British privateering of the 16th century in reverse.The Spanish fleet is the main threat and has been the cause of the greatest pressure on our agreements with Norway. It was the main problem and the main cause of the breakdown in the relationship with Canada. Yet this fleet is to be reduced in size by only 4 per cent.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the problem is actually much worse than he thinks? Not only are the Spanish responsible for the quota hopping, but the catch that they take back to Spain would certainly be regarded as illegal by our fishery inspectors. English fishermen who visit the Spanish markets are astonished by the size of the fish on sale there—they would clearly be illegal here.
Mr.Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has access to secret service reports about what is going on in Spain. I have heard similar reports, and he is of course correct. The fact that the Spanish fleet has managed to achieve its MAGPs in the past was partly due to the number of Spanish vessels transferred from their register to ours.
Even worse, there has been a massive crisis in southern hake stocks, which has prompted the suggestion that there should be a 90 per cent. reduction in catch. Where will the Spanish vessels do their fishing?
Ireland's fleet has been granted an increase of 1 per cent. Ireland gets a higher quota at the expense of British fishermen by means of the Hague preference. Our fishermen in the Irish sea are having their numbers cut by 20 per cent., while the Irish numbers are to be cut by only 11 per cent., with corresponding gains for them on the west coast of Ireland. That is an inequitable deal for Britain—despite the Minister's description of it as successful. I can see no element of success in it. It will cause a disproportionately large reduction in this country's fishing effort.
The Minister will know that I am no friend to regionalism because it works against the interests of Grimsby's vessels. I therefore regard the Shetland box as a load of blah. It is totally unnecessary; it was designed to build up Shetland's industry to the exclusion of vessels from Humberside. It has no biological justification. It is interesting that the Commission's own scientific and technical committee, looking into biological boxes, decided that Shetland was unworthy of consideration because it was not a biological box.
Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will know that the box operates so as to restrict the number of vessels from member states that can be in it at any one time. Can he tell
890
me of any vessels from Humberside in the past 10 years that have been unable to enter the box because of the restrictions?
Mr. Mitchell: If I had the statistics to hand, the hon. Gentleman would need a biological box to protect himself from them. I cannot quote any such examples, but the box is still a restriction on the overall opportunities available to the Humberside fleet, and it is wholly unnecessary.
As other speakers have said, we should have taken this opportunity to deal with the problem of the Hague preference, which discriminates against not only Grimsby but other areas to the south. The definition of north Britain is ludicrous, reaching as far down as Flamborough Head but not including Grimsby and other communities that depend on fishing. Grimsby is, par excellence, such a community, but it is not included in the Hague preference. Hence we are redistributing catches to Ireland, and our fishermen are suffering as a result. The preference is unfair and we should have taken the opportunity to get rid of it. It penalises large areas of England—
Mr. Ainger: And Wales—
Mr. Mitchell: —and Wales which should not be thus treated.
The Minister should tell us now that he will resist any reductions and keep the North sea cod TACs above Hague preference levels, so that we will avoid futher problems in that area.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said earlier that we would seek to edge up that quota without triggering the Hague preference. We can only do that if we are convinced that we can do so within sensible conservation limits. I certainly hope that that will be possible in this case.
Mr. Mitchell: I thank the Minister for that: I hope that it materialises.
I do not know why we are not making more of subsidiarity when it comes to fishing. In fishing matters it is crucial that we defend and expand the power to use national conservation measures, including gear options and exclusion from grounds at certain seasons of the year. We need to employ real conservation measures of that sort, not the phoney conservation measures that we will discuss later tonight under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. We must protect smaller, younger fish, and protect our grounds at certain times of the year.
As for relative stability, given the losses sustained from the 1983 agreement on quota shares we must prevent further incursions by the Spanish fleet into the North sea and north European waters. The Minister said in Committee that he thought he had successfully fought to keep the six and 12-mile limits.
I dread the Commission's proposals for even further cuts in days at sea. Such cuts, coming on top of the Bill, will mean that the industry is tied up for much of the year. That is monstrous. European measures are compounding British measures to restrict the sort of fishing that our men go in for and their ability to put to sea. We should counter such ideas with arguments for selectivity and for gear measures, and for the sort of conservation-conscious passive fishing that Grimsby boats go in for. As for tie-up days and restrictions on effort, there should be a bonus for

891
ports such as Grimsby that use conservation-effective measures. We should concentrate on alternatives to tie-ups, including technical mesh options and closed areas.
We should have taken the opportunity of our presidency to deal with the problem of industrial fishing. It is monstrous that the political influence of the Danes has been used to resist any change in industrial fishing. We cannot allow mass industrial fishing to continue while stocks are so low. The Commission document whitewashes industrial fishing, saying only that there is a need for more research. That is what people always say when they want to do nothing. Banning industrial fishing from the North sea will improve cod and haddock stocks by 20 per cent. or more. Why, then, must MAFF and the Commission prevaricate on an issue on which there has been prevarication for far too long already? We desperately need urgent action to ban the crime of industrial fishing on the scale that is permitted.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman said that the Commission report is a whitewash. We have just received it; we will analyse it closely. We have to be able to prove our case. All my instincts are the same as the hon. Gentleman's on this matter. Even Fishing News, a newspaper which the hon. Gentleman is likely to find more sympathetic than I would, carries an article about industrial fishing in which one of our leading scientists says that the case is not yet proven. We have not yet been able to sustain a categorical case, even though I should like to be able to do so because, as I have said, my instincts are the same as those of other Members who have spoken on the subject. I must point out, though, that the subject is a little more complicated than we sometimes portray it to be.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept that. I accept that we think alike on the issue. None the less, any argument is difficult to prove in scientific terms. It is difficult to know what is taking place biologically in the North sea. We do not know, for example, why the haddock stock is improving. We do not know why the consequences of colder water that have hit Canada and Iceland are not being experienced in the North sea. Scientific proof will be an onerous burden but, a priori, rational observation must show the need to give preference to fishing for human consumption rather than for industrial purposes. By-catches must have a long-term effect on stocks. I accept the Minister's support or agreement in that context, but the onus should not be placed on scientific argument; if it is, the argument will be difficult to establish.
I shall conclude with a problem that will face us and that will arise following the enactment of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, which we shall debate later tonight. I assume that it will be enacted because it is more than likely that the payroll vote will be trundled in. One of the results will be horrendous. It is untenable that large sections of the British fleet should be tied up—they will be prevented from fishing for a substantial, and perhaps increasing, number of days a year—when at the same time an increasing European effort is rippling across the North sea. It is a fishing activity that has been displaced from grounds to the east. It is moving over into our waters and into our limits and displacing the British effort, which is tied up.
What will our fishermen feel when they are tied up, as it were, and unable to fish as a result of Government measures? They know that the European effort in the waters in which they have always fished will increase for
892
ever. That is not tenable and it is a problem that the Minister must tackle. He can do so by envisaging a rapprochement—a compromise or arrangement—with the industry by mobilising it for a purpose that seems to be paramount in the title of the Bill which we are to consider later tonight, that of sea fish conservation. He must work with the industry to achieve that.
The Minister must introduce some measures to control the European effort that is fishing in our waters so that it does not increase. We must establish a track record such as a days-at-sea limitation on fishing in British waters and restrict the European effort to it, so as to satisfy our fishermen that when they are prevented from fishing the stocks will not be taken by an increasing European effort. If that is not done, the industry will face a nightmare. Indeed, something must be done along those lines.
The Commission proposes that we should go ahead with satellite surveillance. There has been talk of 50 per cent. funding by the Commission. The EC-Argentina agreement, which is designed largely to help Spanish development, establishes the precedent of the Commission paying 100 per cent. of the costs. Why should it not pay 100 per cent. of the costs of the satellite scheme, if it is to be established? If vessels are to be observed by satellite and must carry equipment to enable their position to be established by satellite, why should we not have access to the system for national purposes? We could then establish how many days vessels fish in British waters. Why should we not be able to inspect their log books to establish what their effort is in British waters and to restrict the growth of their activities? That is probably the only concomitant or quid pro quo that the British industry would accept as reasonable if it were to be limited in its efforts.
There must be some measure to police and control the landings of other vessels fishing in British waters, whether they are operating under flags of convenience or are registered in the country of origin; I am talking of vessels fishing in British waters and landing at ports in other parts of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that British inspectors could be attached to those European ports. Indeed, we could have any system. There could be designated ports at which British inspectors would be present. There could be designated ports for members of a European inspection force charged with policing vessels coming in from British waters. We must know what has been caught. Catches must be accurately recorded. Other European vessels must be treated in the same way and made subject to the same inspection and enforcement procedures as our vessels when they return to our ports from our waters. The same terms should apply to the European effort in our waters so that we can be satisfied that it is not increasingly taking up the catches that our vessels are precluded from taking.
The Minister must co-operate with the industry, and that brings me to the problem of discards. The European document deals with it in a somewhat meandering and hand-wringing fashion without producing any proposals. I think that the Minister will agree that the system of total allowable catches—TACs—is an inherently bad one. We are using it because it is a faute de mieux. The total allowable catch becomes the catch to aim at. It becomes not the total allowable catch but the total catch that hits the market; in other words, it is the total marketable catch. If that catch is exceeded, fish are dumped overboard. That

893
is disastrous. With certain species, we are dumping almost as much overboard in discards as we are landing. None the less, stocks are decimated. Something must be done.
Can we think of a way in which we increase the allowable catch by estimating the current level of discards and then requiring vessels to land everything at their home ports? That could be coupled with a limitation on landing and possession size to stop the catching of smaller fish. The French are especially adept at catching smaller fish. I see increasingly small fish at the Grimsby market, and there are large quantities of small fish in Scotland. Earlier this year, there were large quantities of small haddock which could not be dealt with, and accordingly they were dumped. It is ludicrous that so many small fish are being caught when we could increase the permissible landing size.
Mr. Curry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting his conclusion, which has been going on for some time now.
None of us is possessed of absolute truth on discards. It is a problem that all of us must face. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should compel fishermen to land all their discards and to make discards a special part of the quota. He says also that small fish should not be landed.
All of us, including Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, recognise that we are faced with a major problem. The same can be said of the diagnosis of the problem. If a fisherman must land his catch, and if discards and small fish must be part of the quota, there will be a temptation to ensure that his quota is made up of the best quality and most marketable fish. That means that there will be discarding. If we say that such fish must be landed but they will not count against the quota, the incentive for conservation fishing will be removed and a secondary market will be created in discarded fish. That will hang over the marketplace and depress the value of the fish that have been landed.
I am open to all suggestions. I have said previously that TACs and quotas constitute the best hole that we can find for the moment. I wish that we could find a better one. We shall carefully consider all suggestions in this context. We would like to find a more effective system. In the long term, conservation fishing and mesh sizes may be part of the answer. We must be cautious in thinking that there is one formula that offers a complete answer. I recognise and share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept the difficulties.
The procedure that I have outlined, coupled with an increase in minimum landing sizes, would force fishermen to use better or more conservation-effective gear and larger mesh sizes. That would be better for fish stocks than having them caught and dumped. The minimum landing size of sole, for example is 24 cm. I am no scientist, but I understand that if the size were increased to 26 cm, that would allow all the male sole, and most of the female, to mature. The sole would then have the most enjoyable part of their lives. They would mature and breed and we would get more fish—[Interruption.] Why not give the sole all that happiness? It is ludicrous to keep the minimum landing size so small.
894
The Minister rightly remarked on the length of my concluding remarks, which have run to about three pages. He will get his Bill passed later tonight, but I shall oppose it, as I think it is monstrous. I hope that he will use the opportunity provided by the Bill to talk to the industry and rebuild the bridges that have been so badly burned over the past few months. He must work to have the Bill accepted rather than impose it by brute majority, as he did in this House and, from what I have read of the proceedings, in the other place.
The Minister must give as well as take and he must make some concessions. He must get together with the industry throughout the country, and in particular with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, to discuss how the Bill can be implemented without causing war between the industry and himself.
Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot use brute force to get a Bill passed in the other place, where not a single amendment that went to the fabric of the Bill was pressed to the vote. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should talk to his noble Friends.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept that using brute force in the other place is like using straitjackets in a geriatric ward. I am glad that the Minister is enjoying my speech so much that he wants to prolong it.
The point that I make is important. There is open conflict between the Government and the industry, which does not want the Bill. Contrary to what the hon. Member for St. Ives said, the industry has offered alternatives and made a whole series of proposals, but the Minister rejected them in favour of his restrictive Bill. The opportunity must now be taken to get together with the industry, and especially with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, to discuss proposals for compromise.
Why not take into account in-built conservation measures and give a bonus of more days at sea in return for bigger mesh sizes? Why not take into account the type of gear used by vessels and, again, give bonuses to those who bind themselves to a one-net rule? Why not give bonuses to vessels that land their catches in British ports? We could count the days spent steaming to and from foreign ports as days at sea.
Why do not the Government come up with effective proposals for restricting the European effort in our waters? Why does not the Minister put forward proposals for financial compensation for an industry that is being held back from its work, in the same way as farmers are held back when agricultural land is laid up? The difference is that the farmers are compensated, but the fishermen are not. They always get the worst of the deal. The Minister should discuss that matter.
Let us make no mistake—the Minister is forcing a reconstruction of the fishing industry through bankruptcy. Restricting the time that our fishermen can go to sea will bankrupt them. It will not help conservation, because they will still try to catch as much as they can while at sea. To impose the Bill without further negotiations, further compromises or further agreements with the industry, especially at a time when the increasing European effort in our waters is unrestrained, is a formula for a civil war and for a sulky industry.
The Minister is trying to undermine and cheat the industry. He has both bridges and nets to mend and I hope that he gets on with it.
6.54 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: My speech will be a great deal shorter than the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I made my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, and on that occasion the hon. Gentleman followed me. He is indeed the life and "sole" of the House of Commons.
I had not intended to speak in the debate, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) stirred me to do so. He said he would not take any interventions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland imposed no such block during his speech; indeed, he was generous in giving way. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was over-defensive, and I wonder why.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for failing, over a number of years, to introduce a decommissioning scheme. The one reason why I shall support the Bill tonight is that, finally, they are introducing one. Labour Members say that the £25 million set aside for that is not enough, but it is a start. Many Scottish Conservative Members have pressed for such a scheme for some time, at the insistence of the 'various fishing organisations.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the amendment passed in the other place—
Mrs. Ewing: That is a different debate.
Mr. Gallie: I am talking about the Bill and about the amendment passed in the other place—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We are not yet discussing the Lords amendments to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. We are debating another matter, which, although related, is not the same.
Mr. Gallie: I accept that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall come closer to home and discuss the interests of the west coast and the implications of the Bill for that area.
We are discussing European proposals for quotas, but this year's quotas have been an absolute shambles because they were set early in the year and then changed. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that that does not happen again.
The Bill will impose a limitation on days at sea, something that has proved controversial on previous occasions. It is certainly controversial now. The proposal is rejected by the fishing organisations, and I accept that they have genuine anxieties. Even if the Bill is passed tonight and goes on to receive Royal Assent, it is not necessary to impose that limitation. There will be time for further discussion between the industry and my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that good advantage will be taken of that time.
I want to raise a point about the current proposal for hake quotas for the west of Scotland. The quotas are still being reduced, so there is still a job to be done by Ministers. I want them to re-examine the figures.
The tie-up rules must be clear when the days at sea are allocated. If a skipper were allocated 240 days at sea a year, to take an arithmetical example only, that would amount to 20 days a month. If he did not use his 20 days a month, his annual figure should not be reduced accordingly.
896
That brings me to the means of equating days at sea from track records, the base reference year being 1991. I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) dated 16 October:
"We realise that some vessels had to undergo major repair works (other than annual services) during 1991. It would clearly be iniquitous if these days were disallowed from their days at sea allocation. Fishermen will therefore be able to bring forward evidence of time that vessels were laid up for major overhaul or other such repairs."
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take that point on board, and say that it will be honoured.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the policing of the regulations. The United Kingdom's officers take pride in enforcing the regulations enthusiastically and efficiently. What is the situation elsewhere? I suggest, as many hon. Members have, that there is a problem in Europe. We tend to implement agreements; others simply agree. The enforcement of fishing regulations is a joke. We have talked about the excessive number of small fish landed in Spanish and French ports that do not count against allocations. We have seen these things on television programmes, and for once those programmes have got it right. There are excessive landings of under-size fish.
I draw the House's attention to a report by Fishing Business International on the policing efforts of other nations. In the United Kingdom, 21 fishing vessels, 180 inspectors and three aircraft enforce the regulations. France has eight vessels, and understaffed and undertrained inspectors, catch data arrive far too late from Brussels and there are almost no effective sanctions against offenders. Ireland has five vessels and the service is understaffed, undertrained and underequipped. False declarations are the rule rather than the exception. In Portugal, landings are not controlled, there are few inspectors at ports and regulations on minimum mesh sizes are ignored. The Spanish fleet fishes extensively off the shores of the west of Scotland. Seventeen inspectors monitor landings—all of them in Madrid. It is a joke, but it is a sick joke for our fishermen.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Great Grimsby referred to the inspection of European ports. I suggest that there might be some advantage in our negotiating to ensure that catches made in quota blocks are landed at quota-block ports. That would meet many of the concerns that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby expressed.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned throwing fish back into the sea. Small percentage catches can be consequential catches. I can think of nothing worse than the waste of throwing dead fish back into the sea. That must be wrong. I wrote to the Minister recently asking that fishery officers consider the situation with some compassion and common sense. Small catches of, for example, hake should be regarded as consequential catches and ignored.
Fishermen deserve the utmost encouragement; they certainly have my fullest respect. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said that he had been fighting their corner for 30 years.
Mr. Harris: Thirteen years.
Mr. Gallie: I thought that my hon. Friend looked younger than that. It is still a long time compared with the six months during which I have been dealing with the problem.

897
I see fishermen as small business men who have invested their all in their capital project. They need to use that cash to earn their living. They must have fish to catch, but I recognise the Government's concern about conservation methods. The Government feel so strongly about achieving the conservation objectives in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill that they are stretching the faith of some Conservative Members. However, the proposals that have appeared from Europe recently go way beyond the Government's proposals. I suggest that the Government have second-guessed the Europeans.
What is happening to fishermen goes against my natural instincts. We are cutting across market forces, in which I have believed for many years, but we must recognise the reality that we are now part of the EC's rules and that there is only limited room for Ministers to move in.
May I, finally, draw attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)? He chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) for not attending the fishermen's rally in Edinburgh on Friday. I do not want to attend the rally and block up the streets of Edinburgh, but I should like to attend a meeting at Tynecastle. Having listened to pleas from the Opposition for an all-party approach, if any hon. Members can get me from Ayr at 2.30 pm to Tynecastle by 3.30 pm, I shall be delighted to attend.
7.9 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: There is an offer! Perhaps one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues will lay on a ministerial car to take him there—
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Or a helicopter.
Mr. Salmond: —or even a helicopter.
We hold this debate in an atmosphere of crisis in the fishing industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) almost suggested that I had instigated the demonstration at Lochinver, but that was not so. It was very spontaneous and I am happy to support it. I may have at least helped to instigate the demonstration in the Forth today when a flotilla of Scottish fishing boats will provide an escort for the royal yacht Britannia. I was very pleased to participate in the march and rally in Aberdeen a few weeks ago and shall be delighted to participate in the march and rally in Edinburgh on Friday.
The events of the past two weeks or so have been very successful. We have had more publicity and attention drawn to the industry's problems in the past two weeks than in the past two years or more. We shall have to do without the presence of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) at the rally on Friday. He seems to be frightened that Scotland will in some way embarrass the Government. The issue at the European summit is not Scotland embarrassing the Government but the Government embarrassing Scotland by its treatment of the fishing industry.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salmond: Before the hon. Gentleman gets back on his feet, I shall extend to him a courtesy which he would do well to follow—I shall give way to him.
Mr. Robertson: I remind the House that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I am not worried that Scotland will embarrass the Government. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I want the world to see Scotland in the very best light—I want the best for Scotland. I am proud and chuffed that the European Community summit is to be held in our capital city. It is a chance for us to show off to the world rather than to bring Scotland down.
Mr. Salmond: I hear the hon. Gentleman's excuses for his non-attendance on Friday, just as I have heard them for his non-attendance at recent fishing rallies. They carry no conviction, but I shall be fairly gentle with him. It is possible to be a Conservative and to represent the fishing industry. That was demonstrated by the late Alick Buchanan-Smith who did so with distinction for many years. It is also possible to be a Conservative and to be hostile and antagonistic to the fishing industry. The test of the hon. Gentleman's approach is not getting elected for the first time in a fishing constituency but getting elected a second time when his constituents have got his measure and have assessed his contribution to the industry.
The Government are wholly out of touch with feelings in the fishing community. I caution Ministers not to believe that all they have to do to reach calm water is to get through this debate and pass the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill which, I remind the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), we shall debate later this evening. The demonstration on Friday will not be the end of the fishing industry's campaign against the Government; it is the beginning of a campaign which will continue into the new year.
There is no doubt that fishing Ministers have lost the confidence of the fishing industry. If they were paid by results, their salary would not only be nil—they would be giving us money back. If their political futures depended on the fishing industry, the two Ministers whom we have heard this evening would be spending more time in their constituencies.
I offer three reasons why the industry is incensed. The first concerns discards. A few minutes ago, the Minister tried to tell us that we face a difficult problem which cannot be solved even though everyone is trying to do so. Especially in recent weeks, the issue has been the unnecessary discard of perhaps thousands of tonnes of haddock into the North sea.
I shall read to the House some remarks made by two constituents, Peter and Stephen Bruce, the skipper and mate of the Buddy Rose. Peter Bruce, the skipper, explains his predicament in the following terms:
"I've been tied up for the past 18 days hoping that we would be given a small amount of haddock to see us through to the end of the year. That's a personal decision I made because I didn't want to do something that is totally alien to all fishermen. Some of the stories I've heard about lads having to throw fish back are heartbreaking. Even in the whiting grounds, they're pulling in loads of haddock. But now I have no choice. I have a young crew who haven't had a wage for three weeks. They have bills to pay the same as everybody else and Christmas is coming up."
His brother Stephen, the mate on the same boat, says that fishermen would rather give fish to charity than have to discard them—dead—into the North sea. He states:
"With the threat of a £50,000 fine, it's just too much of a risk to take. That could finish some boats off. But with so many people starving in the world, it's an absolute tragedy

899
that this fish is being wasted. This Government has done nothing for the industry and they're doing nothing to create jobs anywhere else. If we had fishing Ministers who were prepared to fight for their fleets the way the Spaniards do for theirs we might have a chance. Fishermen aren't asking for the earth. Just the chance to go out and make a living."
That is the genuine view of the fishing industry at the moment.
If Ministers are so out of touch that they believe the nonsense spoken by colleagues in the north-east of Scotland, they should know that the industry is incensed. It is on the march; it will demonstrate and command public support until the Government change their disastrous course.
An hon. Member said earlier that I could not conjure up fish that were not there, but that has not been the position in the past few months—there are huge quantities of fish in the North sea, although thousands of tonnes of them have perhaps ended up dead and been discarded in the sea.
The second reason involves the tie-up scheme. There is perhaps a place for effort limitation as a mechanism in a fisheries policy. If, in the short term, capacity was clearly out of tune with available stocks, there would of course be an opportunity to employ effort limitation, perhaps a compensated lay-up scheme as applied in other Community countries. However, that is not what is being suggested in the so-called Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. What is being suggested is making tie-up a permanent feature of the fishing industry.
When the Bill was introduced, it was argued that we needed tie-up because haddock and other fish stocks were scarce and could not possibly be fished. There has now been a virtual doubling of the haddock quota, but it is still being argued that we need tie-up. It is suggested that if fishermen are allowed to fish, they will catch too much. If there is a tie-up scheme when haddock is scarce and when it is plentiful, the inference is that such a scheme is not a short-term solution but a permanent feature of the Government's fisheries policy.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is employing his usual technique of extrapolating to the point of nonsense. There are more haddock, but they are small—on the margin of the minimum landing size. It would be different if they were large, mature fish in the spawning stock biomass and were able to deliver a stable catch for years ahead. As our scientists predicted, we have had two good year classes. It is essential to ensure that the fish grow and supply stock for future years. If they are pounded now, they will not and we shall shortly find ourselves back where we were two or three years ago.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister has defeated his own argument. Earlier, he said that nothing in the lay-up scheme would impede the catching of the very high haddock quota for next year. If it were a question of the amount of fish available to be caught, the haddock quota would be sufficient. However, he is now saying that we need a lay-up scheme in addition, not to decrease the number of haddock caught but because he accepts that the quota will be fully utilised. The Under-Secretary appeared to suggest earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that a tie-up scheme from Brussels was not acceptable but that a home-grown tie-up scheme would be more acceptable to fishermen, but that is nonsense. Any scheme that introduces as a feature of
900
fisheries policy the permanent limitation of effort, with no compensation, is bound to be regarded throughout the fishing communities as a grievous injustice.
The third factor causing despair to the fishing communities is discrimination—not positive discrimination for the fishermen of this country but the Government's apparent discrimination against their interests.
The Minister was asked earlier about the commitments that were or were not given during the earlier stages of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. Those of us who remember the debate have no doubt that the burden of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was the argument that it would be unfair if restrictions were imposed on fishermen in this country without the same restrictions being imposed on fishermen in other Community countries.
I see that at least one of the Conservative rebels from that evening is in the Chamber. Many of us thought that those rebels were rather foolish to be bought off by what we considered an inexact ministerial guarantee. I am sure that the Minister can stand on the words that he deployed that evening and say, "I am sticking to the words." But those who attended the debate have no doubt that the spirit in which the amendment was moved was clear: discriminatory measures would not be introduced for fishermen in this country until there were effective guarantees that such measures would apply equally and properly across the Community.
Mr. Curry indicated dissent.
Mr. Salmond: I see that the Minister is shaking his head, but there is no doubt that that was the burden of the argument on the amendment. The Minister may get around the words of the amendment; he may manage to dance round what the hon. Member for Tynemouth said—but he must not underestimate the resentment caused in the fishing communities by the fact that with that parliamentary technique he has deliberately defeated the argument advanced, which was resoundingly supported in those communities.
There is a similar attitude to the successful Lords amendment on decommissioning. Of course it is correct to say that a literal interpretation of the amendment can mean that the Minister has only to give proper consideration to decommissioning and then, having done so, he can continue with his existing policy as if nothing had happened. But the purpose of the amendment was to accelerate decommissioning, to advance it in ministerial priorities and to persuade the Government that it should be introduced on its own merits, rather than its being contingent on the acceptance of an otherwise unacceptable Bill.
Last Thursday, the Department said that the amendment would not cause it any inconvenience and that it would not be reversed in the House of Commons because the Department could effectively ignore it when the legislation was implemented. That is to treat the amendment and the sentiments behind it with something like contempt. The fishing industry is up in arms because in policy after policy, and measure after measure, that is the only interpretation of the conduct of the Minister of State responsible for fisheries.
There are other questions which we should be debating but which have been mentioned only in passing. The first

901
is the common fisheries policy review. Why do Members of Parliament have to depend on the Minister to give us helpful insights—a little nugget here and a little nugget there—into the current position? The review is fundamental for the next 10 years of fisheries policy, yet we do not have the current documents, nor the right to know what the policy will be. It is deplorable that hon. Members representing fishing communities are debating fisheries without knowing what the most up-to-date proposals are. The first time that we shall be allowed to debate those proposals will be when they are a fait accompli, when the Minister and his colleagues have signed, sealed and delivered the new CFP in Brussels during the next 10 days.
I shall ask the Minister several questions. First, has the question of flags of convenience been reintroduced into the new CFP revision? Is it in or out? Secondly, is the Hague preference in or out? Has the Minister defended that preference, which many people from fishing communities think is a useful, indeed essential, measure?
Has relative stability been protected in the new proposals, or has it been allowed to be downgraded, as many of us suspected had happened with the previous proposals? With regard to the Spanish accession and Spanish access to Community fishing waters, has anything in the new proposals allowed Spain to get around the accession agreement which would take matters forward into the mid-1990s? Have the loopholes been effectively closed? We have the right to know now.
Has additional action been taken against industrial fishing? Several hon. Members have asked whether the Minister, as president of the Fisheries Council, has made any proposals to bring the issue to the top of the CFP review. Multi-annual quotas appeared in the document which we saw, but I understand that they have subsequently been removed from the new proposals. Is the multi-annual quota proposals still in the current document?
Those questions illustrate the fact that the House is debating blind. We do not know the current state of the fundamental policy which will dictate the livelihoods of our constituents over the next 10 years. It is disgraceful that the Minister has not even revealed his current proposals and has not given us the chance to debate them on a level footing with him.
Real resentment against the Minister and the CFP is running through the fishing communities. I believe that it is possible to get a much better deal out of the CFP. Neither the CFP nor Europe made the choice that the Minister would not fight for decommissioning, which has been available in every other European country over the past few years. Other European countries did not choose that the Minister and his Scottish colleague should refuse at the Fisheries Council even to table the proposals for the roll-up of the haddock quota for which we had asked.
I ask the Minister to tell us during the debate what exactly he meant when, in Standing Committee, he claimed that opinion in the industry was divided on the policy. It was not the policy of other European countries that introduced discriminatory legislation against our own fishing industry, which the Minister will reintroduce later today, when we discuss the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. All those initiatives were taken by the Government against the interests of our fishing communities. The Minister
902
caused considerable offence among Scottish fishermen and fish processors when he argued in the Standing Committee that the industry had not shut up shop as a result of the starvation of the haddock quota over the past few weeks and months. I tell him in all seriousness that, unless he understands the mood of anger sweeping through the fishing communities as their livelihood and their future are sacrificed and jeopardised, it will not be the fishing communities that shut up shop but the Minister and his colleagues who are called to account.
7.27 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I try not to interfere too much with Scottish affairs, although I formerly represented a Scottish seat, but I must tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that, although I have not the slightest doubt that he will have a great demonstration, and will shout a great deal with the fishermen, saying "scandalous", "shocking", and "appalling", nothing could be worse for Scottish fishermen than for the hon. Gentleman and his Scottish National party friends to lead them up the garden path, pretending that there is some easy solution which a Scottish National party Administration could provide. We should not listen to such twaddle, which we hear from time to time from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We must face the sad fact that there has been an embarrassing nightmare of devastation for the fishing industry, and that there is precious little that we can do about it. Unless we get that simple point across to the fishing industry, unless we are prepared to tell people about things as they are, they will lose faith not only in politicians but in democracy.
Although he is on the other side of the House, I must say that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is a great fighter for fishermen; but to hear him speak as he did tonight makes us realise how desperate the situation is. The hon. Gentleman said that we should treat fishermen like farmers. Quite honestly, I can think of no more monstrous protectionist racket than our present system for protecting farmers. He wanted EC funding of a satellite, which I am sure would do some good, but he also wanted British police or Euro-policemen at every European port to ensure that fishermen were not landing British fish without our knowledge.
I am sure that that could be done at big ports with big flashy offices—the operation would no doubt be funded with EC money, which would not exactly help matters —but I remind the hon. Gentleman that fish seem also to be landed without anyone knowing about it at the Portpatricks—the little ports of Europe. The fact that the hon. Gentleman, who is a great battler for fishermen, should have to advance such arguments shows us how serious the position is.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan told us that we should march and demonstrate. He will not remember—he was probably at primary school at the time—our great march on Friday 17 September 1971. On that great day, plenty of fishermen came to London from Southend-on-Sea, Leigh-on-Sea and all over the south-east of England to demonstrate. They appealed to the Government, saying, "Please watch out. Our industry is in danger. The 12-mile limit is at risk. The fishing fleet could be wiped out. We shall have foreign vessels coming from everywhere.

903
The industry will be devastated." They said that clearly and precisely. We have seen for ourselves what has happened since that great march.
I should not like to give the impression that those fishermen were not misled. Only today, fishermen handed me letters that they had received from the Foreign Secretary of the time and other Ministers, saying, "Don't worry; it will be all right. You will be safeguarded." Unless we are prepared to face the fact that things have gone appallingly wrong since then, we shall never get things right for fishermen—in Scotland or in Southend-on-Sea. We saw what happened shortly afterwards—in a separate context involving EC interpretation—to the deep sea fleet at Grimsby, where the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has fought so hard. We saw a fleet of 500 vessels suddenly reduced to a fleet of 18 and 100,000 fishery-related jobs disappear.
We thought that we had 60 per cent. of the offshore waters and 80 per cent. of the available fish, but somehow our share of the value, at least, seems to have diminished from 80 per cent. to 12 per cent., although it is said that we have a greater percentage of the weight. Our share of the quota has diminished and we now have an appalling problem with the Spanish: because they were given the power not by the British Government but by the European Court, foreign vessels now control a huge part of our quota.
The Minister cannot escape the fact—he will discover from the Court of Auditors report that the same is happening in agriculture—that, in some areas of Europe, supervision is simply a joke. How can anyone justify the fact that we have 200 inspectors for the British fleet, such as it is, whereas the Spanish fleet, which is eight times the size of ours, has only 17 or 18 inspectors? I repeat that inspection is a joke, but the concept of Euro-policemen flying around would solve nothing at all.
What really worries me is that the only effective action that the Government now appear able to take is to propose decommissioning and a reduction in days at sea. I hope that the Government accept the simple basic point that, once they have introduced the concept of selling days at sea—selling licences—we shall move towards the disappearance, step by step, of the British fishing industry. Licences for days at sea will be bought up by foreigners, who have already taken over a great deal of our fishing.
We must not seek to mislead fishermen into thinking that there is something we can do. We cannot have British policemen going around every European port. We cannot suddenly say that we want to extend our fishing limits. It would be infinitely better, more sensible and more honourable if, instead of debating daft ideas—which could not work, and which would in any case be illegal in European terms—suggested by a few Members in a Chamber that is virtually empty because the great majority of hon. Members are embarrassed at what we have done to fishing, we simply told people things as they are.
Hon. Members should be in no doubt that I have a fishing industry in my constituency—in Southend-on-Sea and Leigh-on-Sea—which has a great little fleet, operated by people who do not go out in the North sea or to all kinds of strange places but who simply fish locally. I find it most embarrassing having to meet the fishermen of Southend-on-Sea, because they constantly hand me assurances that they have received not only from this Government but from previous Governments.
904
They fish for sprats, among other things, and, only today, they handed me a letter that they had received from the Foreign Office dated 6 January 1972. It stated, in relation to the agreement of the time, that it was terribly important.
"to understand that under this agreement we have, as a result of maintaining full jurisdiction over the whole twelve miles. complete control of our conservation measures."
But I received a letter from the Minister—who is one of the most courteous in the Government—dated 1 December stating:
"the Commission issued a Regulation closing the fishery to all EC vessels, as they had information to suggest that the EC quota had been taken. Such Regulations have direct force in the United Kingdom, and so Fisheries Departments had no choice but to suspend fishermen's licences."
There is a world of difference between our being in charge and a Commission official—not the Council of Ministers saying—stop, and Southend stopping, with all that that entails.
We must also bear in mind the many special problems that face Southend. We are stuck at the end of the cod fishery year, so that when all the cod come down our way, we often have no quota left to fish. The Minister will know that the industry has effectively been shut down for a few weeks, and will remain shut down until mid-January. I have a little suggestion to make to him. It may be unlawful and may not be acceptable to Mr. Delors—indeed, it may be a waste of time my mentioning it—but would it not be possible to have a system whereby, if people are fishing locally off a local port—not going way out to sea with big nets—he could say, "That is for them."? It would make a huge difference to Southend-on-Sea if we could say that the Thames estuary was for Thames estuary fishermen.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to do anything at all about controlling the abuse of quotas by foreigners. I do not seek in any way to give the impression that we can do anything about the big problems or save the British industry. I think that the decision has been made; it is sad, but it is irreversible, and we must not kid ourselves about it. But might it not be possible in the negotiations to find some way to safeguard our little fishing industry—a terrific, long-standing industry which has great successes and innovations to its name and which is made up of hard-working, decent, honourable people? If the Minister could give us such an assurance, it would be a great step forward.
The Minister is a decent, honourable person. I say that without any lack of conviction or sincerity. I know hint to be a straight, honourable politician, and there is a shortage of those on both sides of the House. I hope that he will therefore agree that the best way to deal with fishermen is not to ask them to march or to suggest putting British police at every European port, but to tell things as they are.
I hope, too, that he will bear in mind my suggestion that there might be some little procedure that we could introduce to help local fishing in Britain. If we can do that, and so save something of the fishing industry instead of trying to mislead fishermen and tell them to protest, march and make fools of themselves and us, we shall have done something.
7.38 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in tonight's debate coming, as I do, from Northern Ireland and from a constituency within the boundary of which is to be found 60 per cent.

905
of the Northern Ireland fishing industry. The constituency also has a unique geographical position because it is contiguous with the Republic of Ireland and that will impinge on my later comments.
All of us who represent fishing ports and industries are experiencing depression because the industry is depressed. The industry has served all our nations greatly over many centuries. It is unique because it has not been criticised, as other industries are, for the quality of its product or for lack of efficiency. The industry is being cut back solely because of the run-down of natural resources. We should not try to attribute that to the industry itself.
As a nation, we must share responsibility for that. That is why I see no contradiction in seeking special assistance for the fishing industry. I seek not self-centred aid, but assistance that will benefit the entire fishing community of this generation and of generations to come. That is why we are addressing a unique and very special problem of our times.
Like many other hon. Members, I can say that for the fishing towns and villages of my constituency, the fishing industry comprises the whole economic and social fabric of the community. If it breaks up and disappears, I do not doubt that a similar catastrophe will befall the communities themselves. The fishing communities in my constituency do not have the capacity to industrialise in any other way. Their whole ethos is of the sea and fishing—the landing, selling, processing and exportation of the harvest of the sea. It has been that way throughout man's memory.
After our last debate on the issue, a fisherman told me that fishermen have had the right to fish in the Irish sea since long before the Magna Carta was signed. I thought at first that that was an exaggeration, but when we think about it, it is probably quite true. The right to fish for a livelihood is almost a civic right in terms of the people who have plied the seas for centuries. In that context, I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the suggestions that have been made today.
The fishing organisations and fishermen to whom I have spoken have not been anti-conservationist. Without exception, they are deeply conscious of the need to preserve the stocks of the sea which, in turn, will preserve their way of life for themselves and for their families who come after them.
There seems to be a lack of consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the fishing organisations. I cannot speak with authority about what is happening here, but there is certainly a lack of consultation between the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and the Ministry responsible for it. I hope that that will not be reflected here. Although I accept that the Minister responsible for fisheries in Northern Ireland cannot take part in the debate because he is a Member of the other place. I am disappointed that there are no civil servants from the Ministry in attendance tonight to listen to what Northern Ireland Members wish to say.
It is a matter of grave concern to us that that voice has not been heard. That voice, united in consultation with the Government, is capable of producing solutions which I, as a layman, cannot suggest in this debate. That voice is the forum through which the future of the industry can be
906
worked out properly in terms of restrictions, quotas, decommissioning and all the other negative impositions that have been and will be placed on the fishing industry.
The fishermen in my constituency are annoyed about the operation of the national quota allocation for the Republic of Ireland and about the Hague preference intervention. It is particularly galling for my fishermen because the fishermen in the Republic of Ireland do not fish the entire quota to which they are entitled. On one or two occasions in recent years there has been a transfer of surplus quota from the Republic to the fishermen in Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister in his next round to extrapolate that generosity of earlier years. That practice occurred in respect of nephrops last year.
When the fishermen of Kilkeel and Ardglass are tied up in harbour, they can look out across a couple of miles of water and see fishermen from the Republic plying the same waters, catching fish to their hearts' content and not fulfilling their quota. That will be even more alarming because the fishing fleet of the Republic of Ireland is increasing, however slight that increase may be. That is occurring against a backcloth in my constituency of a fishing industry which has, over the past two years, opted for a reinvestment programme in terms of the number of boats, harbour and processing facilities. It is therefore all the more galling that they will probably now be forced out of business.
The consequences of the many restrictions and of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill will be, as many hon. Members have said, the strangulation of parts of the industry as boats will be put out of commission due to financial hardship because they cannot maintain an economic and viable fishing unit. That is no way to repay the fishing industry in terms of its future. If at all possible, the Minister must ensure that a proper decommissioning scheme is introduced. It cannot he beyond the bounds of human endeavour for a proper, fair and comprehensive European-wide decommissioning scheme to be put into practice.
The fishermen and their organisations who have made representations to me are convinced that such a scheme is a viable way forward. There is no antagonism towards it. There is realism and an acceptance that the fishing fleet must be reduced if the quantities of fish are also reducing. There seems no other practical way of taking out the fishing capacity without taking out the boats allied to those catches, however that may be defined and wherever it may be allocated.
I hope that the Minister will reappraise the Government's inadequate attitude to the decommissioning scheme. Although I do not want to transgress into our debate on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, all the fishing organisations in Northern Ireland accept that that Bill deals with everything except conservation. It will not lead to better conservation practices or activities.
I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who said earlier that if the Bill is passed, as it probably will be, the best thing to do with it would be —as one does with constitutions—to put it in the bottom drawer and forget about it altogether.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Reference was made to our large rally during the summer in opposition to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. If the 20 Conservative

907
Members who on that occasion sympathised with and supported the fishermen would also vote against the Bill, it would not automatically be passed.
Mr. McGrady: I am afraid that I do not share that optimism. I am sure that, one way or another, a sufficient majority will be found for the Bill to receive its Third Reading today.
Most people see the decommissioning scheme as the logical way forward, allied to other measures which can be agreed with the fishing industry. The fundamental factor is that the fishing industry is depressed and confused. The industry has directives, restrictions and licences thrown at it monthly. It simply does not know where it is or where it is going. Any other industry would have collapsed long ago due to lack of forward planning. The only way out of that malaise is for Government Departments and the Minister to initiate a proper round table conference so that all the vested interests can thrash out a meaningful, practical fishing policy which will take us into the next century. I believe that that can be done, even at this late hour, and that it can be promoted and piloted through the appropriate channels of Europe—if it is desired.
Will the Minister—in league, as it were, with his opposite number at the Northern Ireland Office—make some provision for the adequate training of fishermen in Northern Ireland, especially in those areas where training is not available? It is ludicrous that fishermen in Northern Ireland have to travel abroad to complete their training when there is an adequate possibility of providing that training within Northern Ireland, either on its own or in conjunction with the school at Greencastle across the border.
Having made many representations on the matter, I ask the Minister once again to take cognisance of the dangers to fishermen in the Irish sea from the non-compliance with the regulations established for submarines. Submarines endanger fishermen—their lives, vessels and gear. That has happened again in the past six weeks, despite assurances to the contrary. I should like the Minister to re-examine the matter in terms of normal safety provisions.
I understand that the Minister will be visiting Brussels within the next couple of weeks. The fishermen of Northern Ireland have asked me to ask the Minister to barter for the largest possible quota consistent with scientific conservation measures. Fishermen are conservationists at heart. Will the Minister negotiate with the Republic of Ireland the transfer of surplus quotas—especially those for cod, whiting and plaice—to its neighbours across the border? I do not say this in jest, but perhaps the Minister could take one of his ministerial colleagues from the Northern Ireland Office with him so that we can at least feel that he will have better knowledge of the problems pertaining to the Irish sea and the Northern Ireland fishing organisations at his elbow rather than at a distance.
I feel strongly that the answer to all of the problems that we are debating and the difficulties that we have is one of partnership. There must be a partnership based on proper, adequate and on-going consultation between the fishing industry, the various national organisations and the departments involved. I have no doubt that a partnership is the real way forward for a viable fishing industry, consistent with the stocks of fish that will be available to it.
7.53 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: I have had the privilege of listening to every speech since the debate started about four hours ago. One of the great privileges of attending such a debate is that one is able to conclude that there is consensus in the House, with the exception of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He stormed in here, whipped the fishing industry into a great lather, declared that he would march on Edinburgh, then walked out to have his supper. He is not here any more. As a result of the excellent speech of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), the debate has returned to the calm, sensible way in which it was proceeding before the hon. Gentleman's speech.
If one has attended the debate since the beginning, one is able to assess that throughout the House there is a strong sense of feeling towards the fishing industry. I do not represent the same number of fishermen as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), whose constituency backs mine. In the old days, many fishermen lived in my constituency. It was a convention that the skippers came ashore in Grimsby. In those days, the trips were fairly profitable and the skippers lived a good life. Traditionally, they lived in Cleethorpes. Sadly, as the years of decline have passed, fewer fishermen live in my constituency. Inevitably, if one's constituency wholly surrounds the town of Grimsby, one cannot help but become involved and be subject to the pressures and lobbies of the fishermen.
I do not claim to be the expert on the fishing industry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is—or, indeed, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), my neighbour on the other side. It looks as though south Humberside will score a double 20. It is the first time that I can remember that all three hon. Members will have sought to catch the eye of the Chair. The Opposition spokesman and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby bring a wealth of experience which I fully recognise. It is always a privilege to attend the meetings of the local branch of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations which they attend regularly. They have certainly taught me a great deal over the years about the problems of the fishshing industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) summarised the basic problem. We have a finite natural resource. We have a duty to conserve that resource, although we have a duty to provide an income and a living to a group of brave people who do one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. That has been the eternal difficulty of successive Governments in the past 25 years. It would not be right to blame every problem of the fishing industry either on this Government or on the Labour Government. The problems in the fishing industry started in the early 1970s, and successive Governments have fought with great difficulty to overcome them.
We must face the reality to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred a few moments ago: the fishing industry is in decline. However much we seek to create circumstances such as those outlined by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, we mislead fishermen if we hold out that some great march or rally or great quick fix, resulting from either a change in the European Community or a change of policy by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, will somehow solve the

909
problems. There is a basic dilemma—a dichotomy—which can be resolved, sadly, only by a decline in the fishing industry. It is not a decline that I want to see.
Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has referred twice to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). If he had listened carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments, he would know that we are clearly saying that we seek equal treatment in the common fisheries policy. The difficulty that fishermen face, especially those in the north-east and north of Scotland, is that the common fisheries policy is not applied equally across the Community. All that we are asking for is that equality of treatment.
Mr. Brown: I know what the hon. Lady has said—I have heard every word of the debate. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will not be able to say that because he is not here. [Interruption.] I have simply made the point that I have been here since the debate started and have heard every word of it.
Every part of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom—indeed, in the whole European Community —faces problems. I urge the hon. Lady to recognise that Humberside Members—I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will agree—feel that we are unfairly treated by the common fisheries policy and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We feel at a disadvantage because of the political clout that the Agriculture and Fisheries Department in Scotland seems to have.
If the hon. Member for Moray attended some of the meetings in Humberside that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe and I regularly attend, she would realise that Humberside fishermen feel that they are more harshly treated than others.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I give way for a second time.
Mrs. Ewing: I have not yet been invited to a meeting in Humberside. I reciprocate by inviting the hon. Gentleman to come to a meeting of fishermen in the north-east and north of Scotland and listen to the arguments made there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one aspect of the Government's fisheries policy that has militated against fishermen throughout the United Kingdom is the Government's failure to adopt the same attitude to decommissioning as other countries? Decommissioning would reduce capacity in the fleet and resolve some of the problems that we face, but the Government have consistently refused to introduce a decommissioning policy such as that adopted by other EC countries.
Mr. Brown: An invitation from the hon. Lady is always an attractive proposition. She is right to say that there are problems in the fishing industry, whether in Humberside or Scotland. However, we do the debate a grave disservice if we simply say that all the problems are caused by the Government's policies. The Government have a great dilemma: they would have to face an angry House in two, three or five years if they ignored actions which should at least be considered but which, in their view, must be taken to conserve fish stocks.
Fishermen fully expect to be able to go out and fish today, tonight and tomorrow; the Government must take
910
a longer view. There is nothing right or wrong about either approach. It is entirely understandable that the fisherman expects to have the freedom to go out on his next trip. Equally, fishermen in four or five years would blame the Administration if they had failed to take the necessary conservation measures. I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray and other hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies would be the first to lay the blame at the door of the Government.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I have been generous in giving way. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I always give way to every intervention when I have the Floor. I shall develop my argument a little further before I give way to the hon. Lady.
We may disagree with the method that the Government introduce to reconcile the dilemma to which I have referred. I have my own concerns. The hon. Member for Moray is right to mention the decommissioning scheme. I am glad that the Government have embraced the idea of a decommissioning scheme, which they previously resisted. That shows that they are very much a listening Government and that they have changed their mind.
I should like the Government to reconsider the opportunities for expanding the decommissioning scheme. I am attracted to the argument that we are dishing out hundreds of millions of pounds to pay the farmer to set aside his land, yet we do not do anything similar for fishermen. It is not fair to blame the Government or their immediate predecessors for that. Historically, fishermen have always had a raw deal on unemployment benefit, decommissioning and redundancy.
I could tell the hon. Member for Moray about the battles that we have fought in Grimsby and Cleethorpes in the past 15 years to obtain some justice on redundancy payments for all the fishermen who were laid off by the fishing companies in the mid to late 1970s and the early 1980s—the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will concur with me on that point. Now, the Grimsby Evening Telegraph is running a campaign. It has invited all local people to sign a letter to the Prime Minister asking him 15 years on to consider the case for redundancy payments for fishermen who were badly treated in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
I am the first to acknowledge that historically fishermen have been badly treated on redundancy and compensation. Decommissioning might be one way of redressing the balance.
Mrs. Ewing: Undoubtedly, the hon. Gentleman and I could keep the House up all night talking about the problems faced by crewmen and skippers alike, particularly the way in which social security legislation applies to them. I think not least of the problems created in my constituency last year during the period of the eight-day tie-up as a result of the mechanisms in the social security system.
The hon. Gentleman began by referring to conservation measures and the importance which is attached to them. All fishermen in my constituency recognise the importance of conservation measures. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Government were a listening Government. Yet our Scottish Fishermen's Federation made effective proposals for conservation, which lay on the table for two years. Then the Government came up with the scheme of

911
the eight-day compulsory tie-up per month. That is not listening. Why cannot the Government listen to the professional advice of the fishermen on the most effective methods of conservation?
Mr. Brown: I said at the beginning of my speech that I was not as expert on fishing matters as other hon. Members. In Humberside I flow in the slipstream of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I do not profess to be an expert on the answers for the Scottish fishing industry. It looks as if the hon. Lady may yet seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and educate me and the House a little further.
I am not prepared to accept the general proposition that fishermen have had a raw deal not only this year and last year but in the past two decades. It is easy to blame Ministers. As the Conservative Member who represents the constituency next door to that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I shall not forget his predecessor, Mr. Anthony Crosland. As Foreign Secretary, he negotiated in 1976 and 1977. If I wanted to make a cheap political point—which I do not—I might argue that it was thanks to Mr. Crosland selling the deep sea fishing fleets down the river to Iceland in the late 1970s that we were in the present position. But that would not get us anywhere in 1992. We must look forward and consider some of the measures which hon. Members have suggested today, many of which have merit which the Government should consider.
We must certainly do something about enforcement. There is a case for increasing the number of inspectors inside the member states of the European Community. There is also a good case for European Commission inspectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East pooh-poohed the idea of inspectors from one country inspecting practices in another country. However, that idea should be considered. He suggested that it would be illegal, but some work should be done by Ministers to explore that idea with their colleagues in the Council of Ministers.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was right to make it clear to Ministers that ultimately fishing policy should be resolved by the Council of Ministers and not by the European Commission. That is the only way in which there can be any accountability to the House. He was right to make that fundamental point.
Mrs. Ewing: The Council of Ministers is the most secretive organisation in western democracy. We do not even know the agenda when fisheries policy is discussed and we do not get a full statement afterwards to tell us what happened.
Mr. Brown: That is as may be, but I know that I should rather have my hon. Friend the Minister representing my interests and those of my constituents—
Mrs. Ewing: It is not the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who will go.
Mr. Brown: I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Minister of State, who will be handling the Fisheries Council meeting in a week or so.
When those negotiations take place, whether in public or private, I should rather that he was negotiating on behalf of this country and my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby than any other Commissioner, even though they were nominated by
912
member states. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is a tough negotiator and he will report to the House and submit to questioning.
The basic principle outlined by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who opened for the Opposition, is right, but that principle appears to be under threat.
I agree with all hon. Members who have mentioned the need to phase out industrial fishing. That must be pursued with the European Community. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will use every opportunity at his disposal to do so.
Fishermen face a grim time. Sadly, there will be further contraction of the industry, but I hope that it will not result from bankruptcies. If it has to happen, I hope that it will he supported and sustained by an increased decommissioning scheme.
8.11 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: I have spoken in many fishery debates during the past ten years. So often we seem to cover the same ground—total allowable catches, quotas and recently the multi-annual guidance programme; and now we have more problems with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.
I have found our fisheries debates repetitive and somewhat depressing. It is no wonder that fishermen feel depressed and that they are staging demonstrations—there was one in Lochinver yesterday and one in the Forth today. That is symptomatic of the atmosphere in the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom, and it is proof that the common fisheries policy is not working in Europe, or in the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry.
The nation has to reconsider its position in relation to the common fisheries policy. Is it the way forward? I believe that it is not. I cannot see how Greek fishermen have anything in common with fishermen from Northern Ireland or Scotland. I cannot understand why Luxembourg is involved with the common fisheries policy when it is in the middle of Europe.
Fishing policy should be more localised in Scotland and in Northern Ireland; that is why the common fisheries policy is not good for our fishermen. The people will not think that it is good when they watch the film of the events at Lochinver last night, and see good fish being discarded into the sea. The common fisheries policy gives the ordinary man in the street in the United Kingdom the message that the policy is a disaster for the industry, and it is a disaster for people to throw away good food.
I am closely associated with the fishing industry in Portavogie, County Down—with both the fishermen and with processing plants. I shall be brief this evening, as I have spoken so often in debates on fishing.
Reference has been made to the fact that more than 2,000 people are involved in the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and that we have more than 200 boats over 10 m in length in the industry. However, the fact that more than 10 per cent. of them are now tied up in our ports, in Kilkeel and in Portavogie, on a long-term basis, was not mentioned. They are not just tied up for a few days —they are out of work. More than 10 per cent. of our fleet is inactive due to the present decline in the fishing industry.
The comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris)—who has had to leave the Chamber—were music to my ears. He spoke at some length about the Hague

913
preference, which has worked to the great disadvantage of Northern Ireland and of many other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that Scotland has a different point of view on that issue.
Dr. Garret FitzGerald skilfully negotiated the Hague preference on behalf of the Republic of Ireland. He pulled a fast one for southern Irish fishermen. All power to him, but the trouble is that it is damaging the fishing industry in many parts of the United Kingdom, especially fishermen in Portavogie, because it is damaging Irish Sea cod and whiting stocks.
The Minister suggested that one could ameliorate the cuts in quotas by arranging swaps. That is all very nice, but it will require skilful negotiation, and one can only swap if there is something left to swap. In the winding-up speech, I want to hear whether certain swaps are likely to be available in the coming year.
We do not yet know who will be the Republic of Ireland's Fisheries Minister. They spent more than a week counting votes in the Republic. They have finally finished counting and will now spend a few weeks forming a Government. Then a Commissioner may be appointed from Dublin to Brussels, and we shall know whom to speak to about fisheries.
When we reach that stage, I hope that the new Fisheries Minister will not be as brutal in his application of the Hague preference to Irish sea cod and whiting. If he is, it will be disastrous for the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
If the Government fail to raise the issue of the Hague preference in the present talks on the reform of the common fisheries policy, we in Northern Ireland will be very upset. I hope that, when the Minister meets his Dublin counterpart, he will make a strong case for the Hague preference not being used to damage the Northern Ireland fishing industry. That hope has been expressed by several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Unlike the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I do not believe that the Minister should be accompanied by a Northern Ireland Minister who might know more about the Irish sea. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows far more about the Irish sea. Hon. Members must remember that Northern Ireland Ministers know very little about the Irish sea, because they are Members from England who come to Northern Ireland once a week.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture was a colleague of mine at the European Parliament, and served with me on the fishing sub-committee in Strasbourg. At my invitation, he came to Portavogie many years ago. He had the foresight to see that he was going to be a Minister for fisheries. He knows Portavogie harbour and was well received by the fishermen. I am not sure that he would get the same reception now, but he is always welcome in Northern Ireland.
If the Minister fails to ensure that the Hague preference is not used against the interests of the Northern Ireland fishermen when he discusses the matter with the Dublin Government, I shall get involved personally. I got involved in communications with the Dublin Fisheries Minister last year, and we managed to arrange a swap for nephrops. I
914
shall get involved again if I feel that the Government are letting us down. I have no hesitation about making direct contact with the Dublin Government on that issue.
I shall run quickly through some of the quotas. There has been little reference to the quota proposals for 1993, which I thought that we would debate in greater detail this evening.
I understand that it is proposed to increase the cod tonnage next year from 10,000 to 10,200. That is not dramatic, but at least it is an increase. That proposal is important to Northern Ireland, because we take 62 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota. However, we are already aware that the Hague preference would operate in a way that would result in Northern Ireland losing 873 tonnes of the cod quota.
Irish sea whiting, which is of great importance to Northern Ireland, has already been mentioned in the debate. There appears to be a definite proposal to reduce the whiting catch by 35 per cent., which means that the tonnage would be reduced from 10,000 to 6,500.
Mr. Salmond: An important detail should be flushed out. In last year's debate, we talked about directed whiting fisheries. The argument was that whiting was a predatory fish and that fewer whiting would be good for the rest of the fishery. A year later, we find that the whiting quota has been reduced, but for the life of me I cannot understand how those two arguments are consistent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten me.
Mr. Taylor: I cannot, because I do not recall any such argument in last year's debate.
Irish sea whiting is extremely important to the fishing industry of County Down. We take up about 75 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota. The tonnage reduction from 10,000 to 6,500 is a large one, but, once again, the Hague preference comes into play and, eventually, the catch could be reduced to 2,000 tonnes. I hope that the Minister will take up my points about Irish sea cod and whiting when he attends the Council of Ministers meeting to decide on the 1993 quotas.
Northern Ireland also has an interest in the quotas for Irish sea plaice and sole. Although those fish account for a small proportion of our total catch, they are important to our fishing industry, which is small in relation to that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Minister has already spoken about swaps. It is true that we had a swapping arrangement with the Dutch on sole in the North sea. The Dutch took our plaice in the North sea, and gave us the sole that had been allocated to them in the Irish sea. Does the Minister envisage such swap arrangements continuing in the coming year? It has been suggested that all the plaice will be allocated in the North sea and that the Dutch will therefore be unable to make a swap with Northern Ireland for sole in the Irish sea. If we lost that Dutch sole quota, major damage would be inflicted on the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
The main part of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland is devoted to nephrops. Some 45 per cent. of the earnings of our fishing industry come from prawns. I hope that the Minister will remember that some 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota for prawns in area 7 of the Irish sea is allocated to Northern Ireland. I hope that he will continue to ensure that we receive a large quota for prawns in the Irish sea.

915
On the multi-annual guidance programme, there seems to be an argument between the Minister and other hon. Members as to what cuts are proposed. The figures have not been agreed, but there must be some clarification about that. My advice from the fishermen of Portavogie is that 24 per cent. of the Northern Irish trawler fleet will be lost over the next four years. That is serious in itself, but, at the same time, the Republic of Ireland's fleet will be allowed to increase.
The Northern Ireland fishing fleet has been hit by the Hague preference, which favours the south of Ireland, and now we find that our industry will be hit by the proposal to reduce the size of our fleet while that of the Republic will be allowed to increase. Relatively speaking, we in Northern Ireland are losing in both respects.
In the discussions on proposed cuts in the size of fleets, the Minister failed to take into consideration the special problems faced by County Down. The Hague preference was designed to deal with socio-economic problems. We suffer from such problems in County Down, which has a high rate of unemployment and few alternative means of employment. However, 2,000 good people employed in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel will find it even more difficult in the future to compete with other fleets. The Hague preference should be reformed to take into account the special problems that beset the east and south coasts of County Down.
When our Government negotiated and agreed the reductions in the size of the United Kingdom fishing fleet, they should have recognised the special problems that exist in rural County Down. The Republic of Ireland did very well out of those negotiations. It was the only country in the EC that managed to get the Council to agree to an increase in the size of its fleet. I am amazed that it was allowed to do that, but I congratulate its negotiators on that success.
The special position of the Northern Ireland fleet, which is only a few miles from the southern Irish fleet and fishes in the same sea, should have been taken into account. The British Government should have ensured that the size of the fishing fleet in County Down was likewise increased.
I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.26 pm
Mr. Sebastian Coe: I add nothing new to the debate when I say that there are deep-seated problems throughout the United Kingdom fishing industry. If I did not appreciate fully the complexities of commercial fishing inside and outside my constituency before, I certainly do now after six months in which I have represented a fishing constituency.
Neither do I make fresh comments when I say that fishing in the North sea and the Scottish waters is very different from that in the Western approaches and the Irish sea. In fact, so great are those differences that many argue that they may as well be viewed as two separate countries. It is those geographic and oceanographic differences which make finding the right balance for the United Kingdom fishing industry as a whole so difficult.
These differences also demand a regional breadth of solution. I do not believe that that solution lies in he Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. For many fishermen in my constituency, that Bill sounds the death knell of their livelihoods. In Cornwall, it will sound the death knell not
916
only for those fishermen but for many shore-based companies. One must recognise that the catching sector of the United Kingdom fishing industry is but the top of a large pyramid of associated industries, often located in areas where employment prospects are at best extremely limited.
The Bill is an escape clause which will not work as envisaged, for the many reasons which have been rehearsed today and on other occasions—the extra pressures, the risk of fishing in dangerous waters at dangerous times of the year, and the difficulty of policing regulations here and in Europe.
The key issue in my constituency is the fact that it is almost impossible to calculate accurately a days-at-sea entitlement because the majority of the local fleet is under 12 m in length and do not carry log books. Their landing tallies, which the Ministry has requested, may refer to several days at sea previously, especially for those boats fishing for shellfish. Even those who carry log books in boats over 12 m have not put in all their yearly landing data because much of the year is spent fishing for non-pressure stock species. The Ministry does not require such declarations. The paperwork will be a mess and it will be an administrative nightmare to an undermanned Ministry in which many are already uncomfortable with the rules that they are attempting to uphold at the quayside.
Juggling figures is not conserving stocks. Fishermen agree that the seas are being overfished and a valuable resource wiped out. They desperately want a conservation package to be brought in, but to do so with the proposed measures and tie-ups will take to the very edge of existence their fishing livelihoods. Nor will it selectively reduce the tonnage, as scientific advice now recommends.
8.29 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: More than one hon. Member has said today that the fishing industry has its back to the wall. That is certainly true, but it is true in different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom. Clearly, it is true for fishermen in the Falmouth area, the Western Isles and Northern Ireland, but the problems faced by fishermen differ according to the community. I have tried time and again in debates in the House to tell the Government that they cannot simply impose one solution which will work effectively throughout the United Kingdom. There is diversity in Europe's fishing industry, but an equal diversity within the United Kingdom.
Although communities in many areas rely on fishing for their livelihoods, that dependency is even more pronounced in some areas because people have no prospect of alternative employment, should the bottom fall out of the fishing industry. The Government must take that factor into account when proposing measures aimed at conservation.
I was pleased to find that point reflected in a document issued by the Commission in its review of the common fisheries policy. One of the disappointing aspects of the Minister's opening speech was his failure to take up the document's many interesting leads to issues other than the allocation of quotas. For example, throughout the document numerous references are made to social and economic implications of policies affecting the fishing industry. It showed an appreciation that the policies affect the fishing industry differently according to area.

917
On page 50, the Commission says that traditional coastal fishing differs throughout the Community. In some areas, for example, fishing
"is often done part-time to supplement other traditional activities such as agriculture".
That is true for the west coast of Scotland. The Commission goes on to say that in such areas
"It is above all an exploitation of a resource close at hand in poorly developed regions offering little or no other employment or income. Its disappearance, even partial, would destroy the delicate equilibrium of the regions concerned."
I have tried to make that point time and again to the Government. In considering how to handle the fishing industry, they must appreciate that to undermine it in certain areas, notably on the west coast of Scotland and the north-west of Scotland, is to take away from those areas one of their few means of livelihood. There is then simply no alternative for the fishermen who live there. They cannot try to find a job in a different line of business in the future and their children have no hope of finding an alternative occupation because alternatives simply do not exist.
The Commission make that point emphatically in its report to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. It distinguishes between two zones in fishing policy:
"firstly, there are the developed and industrialized zones, with diversified activities"
where fishermen, at least in theory, have the potential of alternative activities. It describes the second type of zone as
"less-developed, often rural zones, where the problem is a social one, quite possibly determining the survival or otherwise of the communities concerned, since fishing is the only activity possible for a large part of the workforce."
The document, which was drawn up by supposedly remote bureaucrats from Brussels, shows a greater awareness and perception of fishing communities' special needs in the north-west of Scotland than I have heard from any Minister in any debate in this House. Such a perception has specific consequences. Several hon. Members have already said that the multi-annual guidance programme is proving to be ineffective in its task of reducing the capacity of the fishing fleet throughout Europe. Once one appreciates the different nature of the fleet throughout the Community, one understands that it is not good enough simply to set targets on a nation state basis. One must fine-tune one's policies to a greater extent and target specifically those areas of the fishing fleet which are genuinely over capacity. It must be realised that all areas of the fleet are not equally over capacity. There is certainly over-capacity on the east coast, but not on the west coast of Scotland.
In drawing up policies to tackle the problem of over-capacity, it is essential to distinguish between those different circumstances. The Commission has recognised that. The same document, in a section called "Structure of fishing fleets", says that the Commission has recognised that the policy to date has not succeeded in restructuring fishing fleets and reducing overall capacity. It indicated the possibility of a new approach and talked about the need to identify
"fleets defined separately and linked to specific stocks"
and specific areas. It discusses segmenting and differentiating between national fleets so that
918
"it will be possible to differentiate fishing effort reductions according to types of vessels, gear, areas, the state of stocks in the different fisheries".
The document was presented to the Council of Ministers last December and it is a great disappointment that the Government, despite the fact that they chaired the Committee of Ministers dealing with the problem, have failed to take up the Commission's initiative.
Another issue of relevance to the common fisheries policy is that of the north of Scotland box—the Shetland box. Various changes were proposed to the Shetland box by the fishermen of the Shetland district. I should have liked that box to be further extended—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) does not agree with me. There is a great need to extend that box to cover much more of the west coast fishing grounds. I fear that, as a consequence of current trends in British and Community fishing fleets towards capacity aggregation and flagships operating in British waters, more and more large vessels of more than 26 m will be operating in British waters west of the Hebrides and on the west coast of Scotland. We must establish some control and safeguards to prevent that.
The mid-term review also presented us with an opportunity to tackle the problem. The Commission recognised that. Page 77 of its commission to the Council of Ministers states:
"the present arrangements for the Shetland area must be maintained and the concept could be extended to other regions under the conditions of Article 7 … Indeed, the box system offers a way of regulating access to resources which has not been fully utilised up to now."
The Commission was absolutely right. In that passage, it extended an invitation to the Government to push for a wider box, but unfortunately the Government have failed to take up that invitation.
We have recently been told that, for some reason, access to the shellfish stocks around the region of St. Kilda and the Flannan isles, and off the north-west of the Butt of Lewis, within the six to 12-mile band has been given to French fishermen. The French have not yet used that access. It is not clear why they were ever given it—they are generally excluded from taking advantage of shellfish stocks within the six to 12-mile band. To prevent the possibility of the French using that access in future, will the Government ask the Council of Ministers to remove that right of access on the basis that the French fishermen have not used it? That would prevent the matter from becoming a problem in future. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that in his wind-up speech.
Mention has also been made today of the recent blockade at Lochinver. There are two lessons to be drawn from that episode. The first has already been mentioned: the need for better monitoring of French landings in France. There is a suspicion within the fishing community that the reason why the French boats still have some quota left is simply that they have been able to evade the existing quota restrictions by landing their fish in France. I fully support the suggestion made by the Labour Front Bench team that a European Community monitoring force should be set up to regulate restrictions throughout the Community.
The second lesson to be learnt from the episode has not yet been mentioned today, although I raised it in Committee on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill: the need to assist and promote British participation in the potential fisheries of the far west waters of Scotland—the deep

919
waters out to the west of the Hebrides. It is those fisheries that the French fishermen have mainly been exploiting. There is now an opportunity for Britsih fishermen to do so as well. However, if they are to be able to do so, they will need assistance from the Government to promote voyages of exploration to test the potential in those regions. European Community money exists to assist with such voyages. In Committee I suggested that the Government should urgently consider the possibility of providing such assistance to British fishermen. The Minister had an open mind and said that he would explore the subject, but I have heard nothing from him. Will he comment on that in his wind-up speech?
A small but profoundly important issue relates to the support from Highlands and Islands Enterprise for new boats to be built in the highlands of Scotland. I would appreciate it if the Minister would consult with his colleague from the Scottish Office on that subject. I understand that support for the construction of new boats in the highlands and islands—made available through Highlands and Islands Enterprise—has been withdrawn. Those new boats would not add to the capacity of the fleet, as they would be financed only if they resulted in reduced capacity through capacity aggregation.
The withdrawal of that support for new Scottish boats does not mean that there will be no new boats or capacity aggregation. However, it means that the new boats are likely to be not Scottish but Spanish flagships taking advantage of the opportunities which arise as older skippers want to sell licences. Unless the Scottish skippers can be assisted in buying licences, Spanish skippers will move in.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the withdrawal of support means that some of the new boats to which he referred might not now be built at Campbeltown shipyard, which is on the verge of closure? That will be a singular blow to that region. If such yards do not have the opportunity to build those boats, it will be a double blow for the whole Highlands region.
Mr. Macdonald: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. It is absurd for the Government to tolerate a situation in which Scottish boats do not come on to the scene in the highlands and islands, thus providing employment for Scottish fishermen and boatbuilders, but instead flagships come from Panama and elsewhere to exploit the Scottish fisheries. I ask the Minister to refer to that in the wind-up speech. Although it is a small and localised issue, primarily affecting the highlands and islands, it is also an important matter which reflects on the way the Government approach these problems.
8.49 pm
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I speak for the small fishing industry in my constituency—for the men in the cobble boats of 12 m or less. At least 40 of them fish out of the harbour in my constituency. Yesterday morning they went to my constituency office. Unfortunately, I was in London, but my secretary took the message about their great fears for their livelihoods and their families. I was faxed their message, which I was asked to relay to the Minister in this debate.
Fishing has never been one of my strongest subjects —I have been a miner all my life. It might be said. That
920
fishermen work on top of the North sea whereas I work under it, but I knew many fishermen when they were still at school and I shall try tonight to deliver their message to the Minister.
My local fishermen are worried about the allocation of white fish quotas; they say that it is unfair. That has been said already many times in this debate. These small inshore 12 m boats fish for other species for part of the year and can catch cod only at the end of the year, but the quotas are all eaten up now and the men of Blyth harbour cannot go fishing. What is more, we are approaching Christmas.
The larger vessels that fish for white fish all the year round have already used up their allocation of the quota, thereby preventing small fishing boats from fishing for white fish, so their crews have to sign on the dole, just before Christmas. They feel strongly that this bad conservation management is causing unnecessary hardship for good crews, and that this activity threatens the very existence of the small-boat, inshore fishing industry. That industry is honourable, and it has existed off the north-east coast for many years.
My constituents are worried because, they say, they are the ones being put out of business even though they do not catch much fish. A few months ago I asked them how much they caught in these little cobble boats of 10 or 12 m. The answer was, only a couple of boxes of cod a day—an amount bringing in between £40 and £50 a day. Generally, there are two crewmen to a vessel.
Inshore fishermen have always recognised the need for conservation; they understand that their future depends on it. I like that attitude. These men know that conservation must be practised, and they say so. These are seasonal fishermen, fishing for certain species at certain times of the year. They would argue that the best time for this fishing is the winter—that people should not fish in April, in the spring, when the fish are spawning. Of course, at the end of the year, in the winter months, the quotas have been exhausted, so the men cannot go fishing just when they reckon the best time to fish has arrived.
These men have only been in the industry all their lives, so I suppose that, like the miners, they know nothing! Some civil servant or Minister in Whitehall, on the other hand, knows it all, and forces measures on them.
Do the Government intend to turn the management of quotas over to the producer organisations? If so, surely the POs should be duty bound to accept all fishing boats into membership. Some of these small boats have applied for membership and been turned down; the POs seem to be becoming a closed shop. Why cannot boats of 12 m or less become members of the POs? I need an answer to that question to be able to reply to the inshore fishermen of my constituency.
The POs have stressed that they do not feel that joining would be a satisfactory solution to the problems experienced by the owners of small boats. I do not know what that means, but I think that it means that small boat owners are being made scapegoats for the fishing industry. They will be put out to work and will have to sell their boats and sign on the dole, while the big boats continue to fish. I do not like that idea. There is room enough in the North sea for all. Conservation is rightly on the minds of inshore fishermen.
I have heard stories about black fish and paper fish and about fiddles that have gone on in the North sea, so the Minister should take a close look at what is happening. I do not want fishermen to be divided by these measures. I

921
hope that all the fishermen of Scotland and elsewhere will work together, but I have a funny feeling that policies are being followed to divide the fishermen so as to get rid of some of them from the North sea.
The inshore fishermen believe that they are the ones who will be sacrificed. I hope that the Minister has some answers for them this evening.
8.57 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The Minister and his colleagues do a splendid job in Europe. The problems that we face with fishing are not the fault of my hon. Friend or his colleagues in their negotiations. The problem lies with the structures under which they have to negotiate. They are another example of the failures of the Community. It is probably timely that we should be debating this subject today, since the Edinburgh meeting takes place this week.
Scotland's fishermen quite properly feel that they were led up the garden path when they entered the Community. Things have not turned out as they would have hoped or wished.
The drift netting of salmon off the north-east coast of England has an effect on my constituency. Indeed, it has a substantial impact on its economic well-being. Scotland banned the practice many years ago and my constituents look to the Government to do exactly the same in the north-east of England and to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that that comes about. If that is not done, we run the risk of closing down some of the most profitable tourist-related activity that we enjoy throughout the central belt and the north of Scotland.
8.58 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall speak for six minutes and no more because I know that others wish to contribute to the debate.
I received a letter and press release from the Minister on 2 December. In talking about the multi-annual guidance programme targets, he said:
"These are fair targets which strike a realistic balance between what is needed to conserve fish stocks and what can be achieved through the Government's decommissioning and effort controlled policies. Corresponding programmes for other Member states will ensure that the burden of adjustment is equitably shared."
I refer the Minister to what is proposed for other member states. The United Kingdom is expected to take a 19 per cent. cut in gross registered tonnage but it is proposed that the French take only an 8 per cent. cut. For the Spanish it will be 4 per cent. while the Irish will enjoy an increase of 1 per cent. If that is an equitable distribution, I am sitting on a massive majority and not one of 755.
I shall talk about two issues that directly affect my constituency. The first is quota hoppers. My constituency office is in Milford Haven, which used to be the hake capital of the world. It was possible to walk across the port on the decks of trawlers. At present, there are only three such vessels working out of Milford that are owned and controlled by Welshmen. The others are controlled by Spanish interests. The 20 per cent. of the people of Milford who are unemployed are naturally angry when every day they see tonnes of fish—British quota fish—being landed from supposedly British-registered vessels that are owned by Spanish interests. They see them loaded by the Spanish
922
crews of the "British" ships into Spanish lorries driven by Spanish lorry drivers. No jobs are created on the dockside by the loss, as I see it, of the British quota, yet still no action has been taken by the Government.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that the British Government can do nothing because of the European Community. The European Court has made a decision on European law. We need to change that law and the accompanying regulations so that the court can make a ruling on quota hoppers. Everyone accepts that. It is generally agreed that the practices that are taking place are unacceptable. The situation is becoming worse and worse. My colleagues in Scotland fear that what is happening in the waters of south-west England, Wales and the Irish sea will happen in their waters.
In the Minister's press release, and in his letter to virtually every hon. Member who is interested in fishing, he states that the MAGP cut for the United Kingdom of 19 per cent. will be achieved by a 10·5 per cent. cut in tonnage and engine power as a result of decommissioning, and that the remaining 8·5 per cent. will be achieved by a reduction in effort.
I assume that the Minister has read the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the common fisheries policy, which responds to the Government's proposal to invest a paltry £25 million in a three-year decommissioning programme. The report states:
"The Committee accept that £25 million is not even enough to prevent the fleet from expanding; four or five times that amount is now needed to make up for the lack of a decommissioning scheme in the UK during the last decade. The scheme which was announced must regretfully be described as too little too late."
If the Select Committee's opinion is correct and the British fleet will continue to expand even though we have a £25 million decommissioning programme, how will the Minister achieve his MAGP cut of 19 per cent.? Will there be more and more tie-up time? Will there be more and more effort control measures? As the hon. Gentleman knows, in their present form they are entirely unacceptable to the industry.
In my final minute I shall talk about the proposed total allowable catches in the Irish sea, the Bristol channel and off the south-east of Ireland. They are entirely unacceptable. If the Minister thinks that they represent an equitable distribution that takes account of the problems that the industry faces throughout Europe, I must tell him that that view is not shared in Milford.
A 12 per cent. cut is proposed for whiting and 22 per cent. for plaice in the Irish sea. There is to be a 6 per cent. cut for plaice in the Bristol channel and south-east Ireland areas. For sole, there is to be a 32 per cent. cut in the Irish sea and 15 per cent. in the Bristol channel and south-east Ireland areas. There is to be a 53 per cent. cut for anglerfish in the whole of sector 7.
At the same time as those cuts are implemented, Irish capacity is to be increased. Because of the Hague preference agreement, presumably Irish quotas will remain the same or even increase. Welsh fishermen fish in the same waters as Irish fishermen and they cannot accept the Minister's agreement to allow Irish quotas to remain the same or to increase while they and English fishermen have to make massive cuts.
The Minister will be negotiating again in Europe next week. I hope that he will come back with a better package.
9.5 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) for truncating his speech to allow me a few minutes in the debate. I fully realise the importance of the fishing industry to his community.
I want to say something about whales—who does not today? I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, which called on the Government
"to withhold its consent to a new EC fish prices agreement until such time as the Community draws up a comprehensive policy for the protection of whales, dolphins and other cetaceans in EC waters and makes adherence to such a policy a pre-requisite for enlargement of the Community."
I realise that the EC fisheries policy recognises the needs of the ecosystem within the marine environment and I welcome that. I also welcome the Government's strong support for the International Whaling Commission ban on commercial whaling. However, that worldwide ban is now under threat from a number of countries—regrettably and specifically Norway. Norway is seeking greater access to EC fishing waters and also entry to the European Community. In no circumstances should either application be given even passing consideration while Norway expresses the intention to recommence commercial whaling in 1993.
The Norwegians are aiming for the minke whales in the north Atlantic. They say that the stocks have now reached a level at which they can be safely harvested. Of course, "harvested" is a euphemism for slaughter because the Norwegians—and, indeed, any other nation—have had nothing to do with husbanding stocks. If the stock of minke whales in the north Atlantic has increased, it is because all other nations have adhered to the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. Why should Norway alone benefit from the self-denying ordinance of other countries? If they took the same attitude as Norway, the stock of minke whales would again be imperilled.
A Greenpeace petition with 500,000 signatures has been presented to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. It was delivered by Members of Parliament representing the three main parties in the House. That coincided with the visit of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, who was in this country specifically to discuss a possible application by Norway to join the EC.
I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 536, which has been signed by more than 160 hon. Members from both sides of the House. It effectively expresses not only how I and the majority of—perhaps all—Members of Parliament feel, but how vast numbers of our citizens feel about commercial whaling and, specifically, Norway's attitude.
I have sent a letter to Mrs. Brundtland on behalf of Members of Parliament, especially those who delivered the petition to No. 10, in which I make it quite clear that we find her Government's proposal wholly unacceptable. Norway has never fully respected the IWC ban; indeed, it has killed more than 900 whales since the ban was introduced in 1986. This summer alone, despite the IWC's request not to do so, Norwegian whalers killed 95 minke whales for so-called scientific research. Where does the meat of whales that are slaughtered in the so-called interests of science go? It goes to Tokyo, because whale meat is purchased at great expense for some of the best restaurants and diners in Japan. The Japanese are involved in commercial whaling.
Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the debate about fish or mammals?
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that is fairly obvious to us all—whales are not fish but mammals. However, whales are regarded in the same way as fish stocks. We talk about whaling fishing, and that is the whole point. Of course we know the difference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that it is unacceptable.
I support the Government's attitude to the IWC ban. Norway hopes to join the Community yet is intent on taking up commercial whaling in defiance of public opinion throughout the world. I hope that when the Minister meets his Norwegian counterparts he will make the feelings of the House very clear.
9.10 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: This has been a good debate, in which more than 20 hon. Members have spoken with some knowledge and depth of feeling about the crisis facing the fishing industy which, sadly, it has been facing for some years. It is depressing that many of the arguments advanced tonight were reruns of previous debates, and the industry faces many problems that it has faced for a number of years. In many cases, the problems are getting worse rather than better.
The Minister will have heard that there is to be a national demonstration in Edinburgh on Friday. I intend to be there, on behalf of the Opposition, to join with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which are organising the rally and speaking on behalf of the fishing industry. It is a shame that those organisations are having to do so, because they are not negative; they have not been critical or argued against the Government for the sake of doing so. They have often made constructive proposals to deal with the problems that the industry faces. I am only sorry that the Ministry has not adopted their proposals more often.
I invite all hon. Members to read carefully the amendment tabled by the official Opposition. It calls for British interests to be protected in the current mid-term fisheries policy review. It asks for structural changes to be applied equally to all fishing fleets throughout the European Community. It asks the Minister to reject measures which discriminate unfairly against British fishermen, to maintain the principle of relative stability and to ensure that our fishermen have the same right as others to an effective decommissioning scheme.
Hon. Members will have heard the criticism of the £25 million that the Government have made available. I explain to hon. Members who may not be aware that it is not £25 million of Government money but the total amount available taking into account the European Community's 70 per cent. contribution. It is a small sum—the Minister may wince, but he knows that—I am correct that the Government are putting into the pot for a decommissioning scheme. I endorse the Lords report which made it clear that it is not an effective or adequate amount.
Mr. Curry: I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). He must have an idea of what would be an

925
effective amount. What would be the amount of money, up front, that the Opposition would be prepared to spend on a decommissioning scheme?
Mr. Morley: The answer depends on what one would want to achieve from such a scheme. One would have to consider the existing fleet size when a scheme was introduced and what one wanted to achieve in terms of capacity units and horsepower, but certainly there would have to be a more adequate scheme. Hon Members are inviting me to give a figure which Conservative central office can double, treble or multiply by the Chancellor's banker's card overdraft and then quote back at us later. If they think that I am going to fall into that trap, they are sadly mistaken. Seriously, we need a more adequate scheme. It should be drawn up in consultation with the industry, with due account being taken of the fleet. I greatly fear that by the time a Labour Administration come to consider the issue, there will be far fewer fishing boats left to restructure.
I am very concerned about the multi-annual guidance programme, and my fear is shared by many hon. Members who have spoken today. I always worry when the Government talk about "a great victory" and "a good deal" that it might not be so good as it appears. Let us consider what the Government have achieved. When one considers the reduction overall in the European Community, omitting Greece which operates primarily in the Mediterranean, it is clear that we have the second largest reduction of all the Community fleets. The Minister mentioned a reduction of 19 per cent. In summing up, perhaps he will say whether that figure includes the roll-over figure from the capacity that we need to reduce or whether we have to add further reductions to it. I should appreciate clarification of that point.
Mr. Curry: I have already given the House clarification—there is no need to wait until I wind up the debate. The answer is that it does.
Mr. Morley: I asked for that clarification because I have seen conflicting figures, but I accept the Minister's assurance.
I should also appreciate the Minister's comments on the fact that as part of the great MAGP deal our fishermen will have to remeasure their fishing vessels. That will involve costs of between £700 and £1,200 per vessel. Is that regarded as fair and equitable or, indeed, necessary?
I should also appreciate clarification of one of the worst proposals from Europe. After dealing with the motion, we are to discuss the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, under which it is intended to reduce effort in line with the MAGP of about 8 per cent. in order to meet our obligations under that programme. If the European Community introduces conservation measures which also include effort reduction by linking it with total allowable catches, will British fishermen face a double whammy? Will they have to have a days-in-port restriction to meet the effort reduction under the MAGP and also days-in-port restrictions to meet conservation targets? I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point so that British fishermen will know what they face—days-in-port restrictions as a result of Government policy, as a result of Community policy, or as a result of both.
926
Some hon. Members referred to the fact that under the MAGP the Irish fleet has been allowed to increase, and it is also arguing for an increase under the Hague preference. As the Minister will be aware, the Irish Republic fleet did not take up its full allocation, so it seems strange that it can make a case for an extra fish allocation under the Hague preference.
The Spanish have the largest fleets in the European Community, but they face a reduction of only 4·5 per cent. It is not as though there has not been a problem with the Spanish fishing fleet: the southern hake quota, which is a major quota for the Spanish, has been cut to just 10 per cent. of the allocation last year. That makes one wonder exactly where those excess Spanish vessels will go, and where they will direct their attention. Why has the largest fleet in Europe come away with a reduction of only 4·5 per cent. while we have to face a reduction of 19 per cent? That has all happened while the Minister has been president of the Fisheries Council.
We have heard of the quota hoppers, and have often discussed them. Another growing problem is caused by the sale of licences from British vessels, both in England and in Scotland, to people from other countries. When the Government operate a policy based on a fixation with applying the free market to everyone and everything, no matter how inappropriate, problems will inevitably be caused by other fishing fleets, which are given a great deal more support and stability by their Governments and are therefore in a stronger financial position, coming in and buying up licences from British fishing boats whose owners want to get out of the industry. Unless we have a policy to deal with that, the inevitable consequence will be that some fishing ports in this country will become dominated by foreign vessels.
We have already heard, in an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), what happens when foreign vessels unload on to foreign lorries which take fish away to foreign ports, with little direct employment input for British people and little chance for the young people of our fishing communities to follow in their parents' footsteps.
We need a proper decommissioning scheme, which could be used to buy the licences so that they return to the sovereign nation state. They could then be reallocated, or used as part of the effort control and conservation policy. At the moment, no one is satisfied: the licences are passing into foreign hands, our conservation effort is not being helped, and our fishing ports are being seriously affected.
While we are dealing with the so-called quota hoppers, will the Minister tell us the position regarding the compensation claim by the people who, because of the slack wording of the Merchant Shipping Act, won their court case and are now demanding considerable compensation from the British Government? Where will the compensation come from? Will it come from the fisheries budget? What kind of figure are we talking about? I should appreciate any information that the Minister has.
As the Minister knows, during negotiations on the European Economic Area agreement Norway gave increased access to some of its cod stocks. Unfortunately, most of that went to the Iberian fleet, and we did not do well out of it. I understand that Norway is now seeking compensation from CFP fishing waters for that access. Will the Minister resist that idea? I feel that Norway got off lightly in terms of the waters allocated to EC fleets, especially ours, for membership of the EEA. I take the

927
point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks): if Norway ignores international laws and flouts international conventions, it should not expect to be treated sympathetically in relation to its application to join the EC or in other negotiations.
Subsidiarity is a buzz word in European negotiations these days. Although we agree that each nation state ought to have as much control over its own affairs as possible, in view of the Government's record I am worried that our fishing fleet may face restrictions which other European fishing fleets do not face—as, indeed, it already does with the days-at-sea restrictions. Will the Minister confirm that no other EC member state has days-in-port restrictions of the type that our fishermen have to put up with? If we are to have restrictions and conservation measures, they should be fair and equitable and our fishing fleet should not be put at a disadvantage compared with the fleets of other member states.
The question of the EC licensing policy has been raised in the mid-term review. The concept of a European Community fishing licence is a step forward. The Minister said that he regarded licensing as part of effort control. Would he care to expand on that when he sums up? Does he envisage introducing restrictions in terms of the banding and grouping of vessel types and the way in which licences can be used? Does he envisage tighter control of the allocation of licences in this country or in the EC generally? Will he undertake that, if such restrictions are imposed as a form of effort control, our country will not once again suffer adversely in comparison with other member states?
The principle of relative stability—an important element of any discussion of the Community—has been referred to. I acknowledge the Minister's assurances on that point, and I accept that he is arguing that the principle of relative stability should be maintained. Any efforts that he makes to achieve those objectives have the whole-hearted support of the Opposition.
The mid-term review recommends that the Hague preference should be maintained. We have no argument with the maintenance of the Hague preference—
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Yes, we have.
Mr. Morley: —although it has disadvantages for certain parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has made only too clear. We should work towards a state of affairs in which the Hague preference, which should be regarded as a safety net, is not implemented and in which we have suitable stocks to which all our fishing ports have fair access.
The Shetland box is also to be maintained in its present form. I know the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby on that. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made the fair point, however, that in its present form the box has not placed restrictions on other vessels—certainly not on those from the Humberside fleet. There is an argument for the use of biological boxes as a conservation tool; they should not be used as a way of giving unfair advantage to a particular group. Would the Minister be willing to argue for the extension of the boxes principle, on a permanent and a temporary basis, to protect spawning stocks, sensitive areas and fishing grounds?
Mr. Salmond: I have some reasonably friendly fire for the hon. Gentleman. He is speaking with some confidence
928
about the latest proposals for the revision of the common fisheries policy. Does he have them in his possession? Have they been made available to him by the Minister? If not, how can he be so confident about what they contain?
Mr. Morley: I am dealing only with the proposals in the papers made available to European Standing Committee A, which the hon. Gentleman has seen. I have seen no other papers or proposals apart from those debated by hon. Members who attended the sitting of that Committee. All the proposals were outlined in detail in that document. Perhaps it will be reviewed and revised. I remember the Minister saying that the wording was confused and somewhat inaccurate, so a further document may well be brought forward, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have seen no document other than what was laid before us. I am not aware of any other document, although I noted and listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said.
A careful consideration of regional policy as it applies to fisheries is needed. I hope that the Minister will consider European regional aid for communities in which fishing is of major importance. I refer not only to small isolated communities and fishing ports but to areas which depend heavily on fish processing, such as Aberdeen, Grimsby and Hull. Given the pressures and problems that the fishing industry faces—particularly if the proposals for still more days-at-sea restrictions go forward—it is important that we have an aid package which takes into account the communities and the crews and their families. Even with decommissioning, which I support as part of a package, the bulk of the help goes to the owner of the boat. We also need to consider crews, communities and families. I hope that the Minister will argue that assistance should be given to those communities via the relevant structural funds.
In respect of regionalism, we also heard about small boats which operate in inshore waters. I welcome the fact that the mid-term review proposes that the six-mile and 12-mile limits are to be kept, but I hope that the Minister will also consider small vessels which operate inshore close to their home ports and use highly selective gear. In that respect, I am thinking of the Cornish handliners, of longliners in general and of small boats which take small catches and are very selective, with next to no by-catch. In many cases, those very small boats suffer as a result of policies designed to catch much larger boats taking a much larger catch. As part of a regional policy, and recognising that those small boats operate a very environmentally friendly method of fishing, the very small quota taken by those boats should receive special consideration.
The news about total allowable catches is no worse than the news last year. There are proposals for a significant increase in the haddock quota. I appreciate that the Community and the Minister must be guided by scientific advice, but there is a problem when quotas seem to change dramatically from drastic cuts one year to drastic expansion the next. The Minister may argue that the past two years have been very good spawning years, particularly for haddock, but I hope that he will ensure that the Commission's scientific advice is reliable and the basis for a manageable quota so that we avoid difficulty.
As the Minister is aware, the Commission produced a consultation document on discards. I hope that more work will be done on discards, particularly in relation to the introduction of various kinds of conservation gear. Hon. Members will be aware of the arguments in favour of square mesh panels and the pioneering work carried out

929
on that in this country. Square mesh panels have been implemented unilaterally by the United Kingdom and I hope that the Minister, as president of the Fisheries Council, will argue for them to be included throughout the Community fleet as part of an effort to reduce discards.
There are some welcome steps in the mid-term review in respect of enforcement. I support the idea of multinational teams and I was a little surprised at the comments of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). If we argue about equality of enforcement, there is a good argument for a multi-national team entering member states to ensure that they are abiding by the regulations agreed within the Community. The best way to do that would be to have an impartial spot check by inspectors who have no connection with that country.
There may well be an argument for establishing a European agency directly responsible for that work to ensure that the rules are applied. I see the hon. Member for Southend, East wincing at that suggestion, and I appreciate that it would be yet another agency, but we are members of the Community and we have certain rules. It is important that those rules are enforced fairly in every country.
My colleagues have referred to satellite surveillance. There is an argument for that, but we would need a pilot study on it. The Minister will recall that I said in Committee that it might be possible to consider linking satellite surveillance to GPS satellite navigation systems. That would save many fishermen a great deal of money. The system would be more attractive to fishermen if it provided details of a boat's position and if it could be incorporated in satellite navigation systems towards which many fishermen are moving. We must also stress the safety implications of that equipment. There are advantages for fishing boats, as they would be tracked at all times. If the signal stopped, the appropriate national emergency services could be alerted.
Data transfer has also been considered in depth. In relation to new technology, it is a good idea to discuss the possibility in the future of electronic data transfer, perhaps even by signalling data to a central recording station where there could be an immediate update on catch position and what boats have been doing. That is a good idea, but one must take into account the cost implications for fishermen and the actual equipment, which soon becomes outdated. I would not want fishermen to be put under an unfair burden. I hope that the Minister will speak to his hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry and alert some of the electronics companies that on the horizon is a potentially big order for the equipment. I hope that British electronic companies will bid for contracts for the provision of such equipment, which I suspect will be installed on EC fleets.
The Minister knows my views on industrial fishing. He knows that the Labour party has argued for many years for the phasing out of industrial fishing. I welcome the emphasis in the mid-term review that we need to examine fishing in the global context and take into account the whole marine ecosystem, and I accept that. Where does that leave industrial fishing? In Committee, the Minister told us to wait for the report. I have to agree with previous comments that the report appears to be a whitewash, in the
930
sense that it merely says that we need more research into industrial fishing whereas I believe that we need action on industrial fishing.
During the summer, on my family holiday, I took the opportunity to go round Esbjerg and look at the fishmeal plants and their trawlers. One could say that I was sniffing around. I also visited Esbjerg fishing museum, which was excellent. In Denmark, I found that the support for industrial fishing is not universal. Even in the national fishing museum, there were critical comments about the role of industrial fishing and what it was doing to fish stocks in the North sea. So the Danes cannot claim unanimous support for industrial fishing, which is primarily used for pig food. The time has come to take some firm action on the matter.
I appreciate what the Minister said about research and the fact that it is not clear either way. There is such a thing as the precautionary principle. I hope that the Minister will argue for that principle. I refer to third country access.
I wonder whether the Minister could comment on the Falkland Islands position, which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has briefly mentioned. Is it true that the European Community has given 100 per cent. financial support to a joint venture between Spain and Argentina to develop the hake fisheries around the Falkland Islands? Such aid is normally 50 per cent. Does that support mean that a large Spanish fleet has registered as Argentinian, is operating around the Falklands, will have unrestricted access to EC markets, and will have a deterimental effect on the licensed income for the Falkland Islands? That licenced income has cut the overseas development aid payments from British taxpayers to the Falkland Islanders, whose income will now be severely dented. Was financial support given to the joint venture while the British Minister was president of the Fisheries Council? I would certainly appreciate the Minister's comments on that.
The need for conservation is real. Sometimes one has to take tough decisions, and sometimes those decisions must be implemented. The Labour party recognises and supports tough decisions on conservation if science dictates such decisions and if the measures are fairly applied. The root of the problem that we are discussing is that for more than three years we have argued for an effective decommissioning scheme but failure to implement that scheme has caused all the problems that we have been talking about. There must be a package including decommissioning as well as conservation gear, licensing enforcement and conservation management.
Fishermen are facing severe hardship. They feel discriminated against and ignored, and that they are not being treated fairly. We lack a structured and coherent policy. The industry has suffered as a result of a crisis management approach. Our amendment outlines the basic principles which our fishermen want to see. I hope that hon. Members from fishing ports will support their fishermen by backing our amendment. I hope that the Minister will also answer my questions. Above all, I hope that the Government will think again about their whole fisheries policy and recognise the awful consequences of a poorly considered and crisis management approach.
9.39 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): This has been an extremely reflective debate. I fear that I may not be able to answer all the points raised because the time available for my reply has been somewhat squeezed.
Several hon. Members asked me to talk to the industry. I look forward to meeting the leaders of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations at 12 o'clock on Friday to discuss the forthcoming meeting of the Fisheries Council. We have a rendezvous with the NFFO for an open-house discussion on the whole conservation package in the new year. Of course, matters such as the sqauare mesh panel, to which my hon. Friends referred, will be discussed.
A couple of weeks ago, I had representatives of the industry from Hull in my office to discuss their problems. The deep sea Norwegian fisheries are particularly important to them. On behalf of Grimsby they said how pleased they were to see such a large Government grant going into the port of Grimsby. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) would not forgive me if I failed to mention that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) recently brought a delegation from Whitby to see me. I have received a delegation from fishermen who fish in the waters around the mouth of the Thames. I have visited Fleetwood. I have met the fish processors, to whom import duties are of particular importance. I inform the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that I have met representatives of the industry which cans dolphin-friendly tuna.
So I have been fairly active in the past few weeks in meeting representatives of the industry. It is a constant communication and it will continue. There is no question of there being some terrible freeze on relationships. I have discussed the matters with the industry. My officials are in virtually daily contact on one issue or another and inevitably that will continue.
I recognise that the Irish sea presents particular difficulties to Northern Ireland fishermen. The Northern Ireland Members who spoke asked me to make sure that their voices were heard in the European Council discussions. If those three hon. Members are willing, I shall meet them separately before the next meeting of the Council to discuss matters relating to the Irish sea and Northern Irish fisheries. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and he thinks that it is an extremely good idea.
I extend that invitation to those hon. Members. I shall ask my office to get in touch with them to make arrangements to have detailed discussions. I warn them that on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday I shall be at a meeting of the Agriculture Council in Brussels. But we shall have that meeting because I recognise the particular sensitivity of the waters in which Northern Ireland fishermen have to fish.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) will be aware that the Prime Minister raised the matter of the Norwegian fisheries with the Norwegian Prime Minister when she was in the United Kingdom recently. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's points will have been widely heard. I know how deeply he feels about the matter. Many people share his sentiments about Norwegian activities.
932
We usually have a pretty constructive debate across the Dispatch Boxes—I am flattering the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley); it is a pity that he is not listening, because I do not do it often. On occasions such as this we have a sensible debate. There is a large measure of agreement between many of us. There always tends to be a bipartisan quality to discussions on the European Community. I should like to see that reasserted.
It is helpful if I can go to Brussels and say, "The whole House believes this. I cannot sell this measure to the House. This is what I must deliver to the House." That is important because we are subject to a closer form of supervision and control than almost anyone who sits around the Council table. Other member states are beginning to acknowledge that that is the case.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe referred to the Spanish demand for compensation. That has gone back to the European Court of Justice for clarification. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I should prefer not to be drawn into those legal waters.
The Labour party has kept its plans for decommissioning one of the most closely guarded secrets in the fishing industry. We went through a whole Bill this year without the secret getting out. We have gone through two Opposition spokesmen without the secret getting out. I am sure that we shall continue to go around that subject. At least we have put our money on the table —£25 million over three years. All we know is that Labour does not think that it is enough. Opposition Members think that the House of Lords is right in saying that there should be four or five times that much, but they will not say how much they will put on the table, and it is the amount of money that counts.
Mr. Ainger: In my short contribution to the debate I said that if we are right, if the Select Committee on European Legislation is right and the Minister is wrong, how will he deliver the multi-annual guidance programme?
Mr. Curry: I shall come to the MAGP in a minute, but the answer is simple. We shall deliver it by a combination of decommissioning and aggregation proposals.
We have delivered some of the percentage by cleaning up the register and we shall deliver the rest through the day-at-sea controls. I outlined how that will work during debate on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked a detailed question about how the MAGP would work. It is complicated and concerns vessel capacity units. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the term. I shall write to him with details of how it will work because frankly it would sound like algebra if I produced it at the Dispatch Box.
There is the old canard about 70 per cent. Community money, but because of the Fontainebleau mechanism and the United Kingdom abatement it is three quarters British money. I have not detected any hon. Member advising the Prime Minister that he should not fight for the maintenance of the British abatement during the negotiations on the Community budget that he will undertake during the next few days.
The problem with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) is that its central part states that we must not do anything that no one else does, not even in conservation. If the amendment

933
were accepted, I could not do many of the things that the industry has asked me to do unilaterally. The industry has told me that it thinks that the minimum carapace size for lobsters is too small and should be increased. It has demanded an increase in the minimum landing size for whiting because the Community has taken it too low. I could not do any of those things. Twin-rig trawls for prawns are mechanisms that the fishermen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) want outlawed. Under the terms of the amendment we could not do that. I do not understand the last part of the amendment, which deals with the money in the Community budget, and I shall not recommend that anyone should vote for something that I do not understand.
I am confident that we shall see off the Community's effort reduction proposals, which would almost exclusively affect the British fleet. Again, they affect areas 4 and 6. The proposals would be wider and would take in about 800 vessels. Part of the definition is for vessels that do not catch any cod or haddock. The formulation is curious, we have been engaged in intense discussions and I believe that those proposals will not be pursued.
I recognise all the sensitivities of the Irish issue. Essentially, the Irish demanded more quotas, which would mean revising the keys of relative stability. We shall not revise the keys. The Irish will not get more quota, which is their key demand.
It is true that, under the MAGP, because the Irish do not catch their existing capacity, they have been able to sustain a demand that they should have a lighter regime than other countries. That goes back to 1982, when the quotas were distributed. However, the key is to get more fish. No one in the Community to whom I have spoken is willing to allow more fish to be caught, and I have spoken to many people on the subject because I know how sensitive the issue is.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I shall not give way. I have been left little time to wind up and I want to cover as many matters as possible. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not normally reticent in giving way.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe on technical measures made a lot of sense. We are open to suggestions and I am willing to pursue his detailed suggestions on conservation measures.
I shall outline what I believe we will be able to achieve in the so-called revision of the common fisheries policy, or the next 10 years. I have put it in those terms because the final agreement has not been reached. Negotiations have reached a certain point. It seems that we will be able to achieve relative stability, as it is defined at the moment, which is similar to what I outlined in the Scrutiny Committee—the existing Shetland box. I know that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) would have liked the box to be fatter, wider and larger, but many people—some are sitting next to him—do not like the box at all and the best bet seemed to us to be to maintain it as it was. We think that we have achieved that. We have preserved the zero to six and the six to 12-mile limit for
934
another 12 years. That covers the exclusive zone, particularly the inner zone for coastal fisheries, which is important.
There is the possibility of multi-annual and multi-species TACs where they make sense. The proposed revision of the fisheries policy retains that concept. The use of such TACs does not become obligatory, but they may be used at the discretion of Ministers if they believe that a particular stock warrants that treatment as opposed to the current annual practice. The decisions will be kept at the level of the Council of Ministers; in other words, the idea that they should be floated off to some sort of management committee or a Commission-chaired body has disappeared.
Agreement has also been reached on the idea that all vessels should have a licensing system. There is some argument over the extent to which freshwater fisheries and non-commercial fisheries should be included. It embraces the Hague preference, but it does not embrace Spanish accession, because that is subject to a separate report, which, under the treaty of accession, must be delivered by the end of this year for further consideration.
I recognise the problems associated with the Hague preference. I know that for every winner there is a loser and that, sometimes, there seem to be two losers. On balance, as has been said, we estimate that the Hague preference is in favour of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we will continue to seek its application. I recognise the importance of swaps where the Hague preference applies—and, sometimes, where it does not. Swaps are becoming more difficult as quotas diminish in some fisheries and fisheries take their full quota. If my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) were here, he would no doubt be inveighing against the swaps with the Dutch that we have arranged in previous years.
We must take a view, on balance, as to what is in favour of the fisheries when the time comes to take that view. We are particularly sensitive to the problems in the Irish sea and the swaps that would help to eke out a difficult fishery in that sea. We shall pursue those swaps where it appears to us that the balance of interest is in Britain's favour.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Curry: I shall give way very briefly.
Mr. Salmond: When will we see the latest proposal? The Minister has spoken about relative stability not being qualified by the Spanish accession. That means that there has been a change since we debated the specific document in Committee. When will the Minister table the new proposals so that we can see them and ensure that we are defending the interests of our fishing communities?
Mr. Curry: It is not my intention to table presidency proposals that will be put forward as part of the debate. It is impossible to conduct negotiations on that basis. In any case, most of it takes the form of amendments to existing texts. The role of the Select Committee on European Legislation is to scrutinise the proposals that the Commission puts forward. I appreciate the difficulties, but we are in negotiation. I have given the hon. Gentleman as full an account as I am able, as I did in Committee this morning on a different matter. He must recognise that I try to give the House the best and most accurate information available.

935
Mackerel flexibility is one of the traditional conditions for which we go in the negotiations. It is important to take a percentage of the mackerel catch east of the four degrees west line because of the change in the migratory pattern of the stock. Fish are tiresome because they change their migratory pattern. The cod that used to be found west of Greenland are now migrating to the east of Greenland and perhaps around the Icelandic waters. That has implications for our deep sea fishery.
I recognise that the closure of fisheries presents problems for many people. I took the precaution of checking the latest figures to see where we are making such closures. I have a list of all the closures that we have been forced to undertake. I shall not read through it, but it shows that in all the areas where a fishery has been closed, by the time the last figures are available, we will have hit the quota. Therefore, we have not closed a fishery prematurely without enabling fishermen to take their legitimate catch; we have closed where experience has taught us that we have exhausted our quota or will do so.
The allocation between the sector and non-sector group of fishermen is something that one cannot fine-tune perfectly. I am willing to do more to make that allocation more satisfactory. Closures represent difficult decisions, but I want to be sure that, by and large, we have got it right. The figures in the list, which I am perfectly happy to give to those hon. Members who are interested, illustrate that we have got it about right.
Norway presents a difficult problem. It has been mentioned by several hon. Members, but I hope that they will understand that, with the short time available, I shall deal with issues rather than individual speeches. We have five jointly managed TACs with Norway. If we have no agreement, we set autonomous TACs and quotas for the Community zone, which means that we have no access to Norwegian waters until an agreement intervenes, nor do the Norwegians have access to our waters. The problem with deferring the economic area agreement is that the 2·9 per cent. share of the cod quota, which we run as part of that agreement, does not necessarily trigger. That share may be modest, but it is a share of a TAC that is increasing to 500,000 tonnes this year, so it is a large amount of cod. Equally, the 6,000 tonnes of fish that Spain, Portugal and Ireland wanted for their first entry into that fishery does not trigger either, so the so-called "cohesion fish" does not trigger. When we get the deal, access will have to be restored.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has links with the processing industry because of his constituency interests. It will be necessary to renegotiate the terms that we negotiated last month because of the failure of the EEA to come into force on 1 January. I have written to the Commissioner asking him to put the new proposals forward so that we can act on them.
I do not wish to go over the grounds of the haddock quota, except to repeat that I am convinced that to catch small fish on the margin of the landing size would be a mistake. We wish to see that fishery preserved to go into the spawning stock and we want a healthy stock to emerge as a result. I am glad that Opposition Members understand those problems.
On the multi-annual guidance programme targets, if one considers what the United Kingdom must do, excluding the catch-up, one will find that we are extremely comfortably positioned. The United Kingdom has a 10 per cent. cut; Portugal, 10 per cent.; Germany, 12 per cent.;
936
France, 10 per cent.; and Belgium, 16 per cent. Even with the catch-up—I do not pretend that there is no catch-up, and I am concealing nothing from the House—Belgium must do 34 per cent.; Greece, 24 per cent.; and the Netherlands, 21 per cent. The United Kingdom is in the middle of that pack: we shall manage to achieve a balance between the decommissioning scheme and the other measures that tackle capacity, and the measures related to days at sea.
Discards are a major problem for all of us as no one wants that to happen. As I explained in an earlier intervention, it is difficult to find a formula that does not present equal problems. It may be a technical conservation measure to some extent, moving in certain circumstances towards multi-annual TACs and multi-annual quotas. We shall explore all those to tackle a problem which we all admit brings a great deal of disrepute to the industry, which no one likes to see. I have outlined the difficulties that that presents for us.
Hon. Members have mentioned many matters that relate to their fisheries and the TACs and quotas in them. The House will understand that those are detailed matters. Regretfully, I cannot deal with them now, although I have copious notes to do so had I had enough time. If hon. Members wish me to give the details, I shall make the information available in a condensed form so that they can make a judgment.
On the Community negotiations, we shall have a session the weekend before Christmas. It will he a difficult session. Traditionally, many items are piled on to the agenda. The Norwegian problems will be an extra item on the agenda. Although we had already cleared it once, we must return to it. We have the TACs and quotas to sort out and it will be hard work getting the work done in time to have matters in place by the new year, simply because of the inevitable rush at the end of the year. We shall achieve it. We are working hard in Committee and my officials are working extremely hard. We want to ensure that the industry knows where it is as soon as possible.
Let me make one thing clear about the Bill. We have £25 million worth of decommissioning and we shall have effort control—those two go together. Without effort control, there will be no decommissioning. We have said that from the start of the Bill's passage and I repeat it today. The money was not secured without difficulty, and it is important that the two issues should be seen to go together.
As I promised, we are licensing below 10 m. We have a programme of technical conservation measures, which are known by, and by and large approved by, the industry. The measures form a package that is designed to secure the industry's future and that of the fishermen. The policy is based on conservation and common sense. I commend it to the House and ask hon. Members to support the Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 294.

Division No. 99]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Armstrong, Hilary

Ainger, Nick

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Ashton, Joe

Allen, Graham

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Alton, David

Barnes, Harry

Anderson, Donald(Swansea E)

Battle, John

Anderson, Ms Janet(Ros'dale)

Bayley, Hugh

937

Beggs, Roy

Hoon, Geoffrey

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Hoyle, Doug

Benton, Joe

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Bermingham, Gerald

Hutton, John

Berry, Dr. Roger

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Betts, Clive

Jamieson, David

Boateng, Paul

Johnston, Sir Russell

Boyce, Jimmy

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Bradley, Keith

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Burden, Richard

Jowell, Tessa

Byers, Stephen

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Caborn, Richard

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Khabra, Piara S.

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Kirkwood, Archy

Cann, Jamie

Leighton, Ron

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Lewis, Terry

Chisholm, Malcolm

Litherland, Robert

Clapham, Michael

Livingstone, Ken

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clelland, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Loyden, Eddie

Coffey, Ann

Lynne, Ms Liz

Connarty, Michael

McAllion, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Corbyn, Jeremy

McCartney, Ian

Cousins, Jim

McCrea, Rev William

Cox, Tom

Macdonald, Calum

Cryer, Bob

McFall, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McGrady, Eddie

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Darling, Alistair

McLeish, Henry

Davidson, Ian

Maclennan, Robert

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McMaster, Gordon

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McNamara, Kevin

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McWilliam, John

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

Madden, Max

Denham, John

Mahon, Alice

Dixon, Don

Mandelson, Peter

Dowd, Jim

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Martlew, Eric

Eastham, Ken

Meale, Alan

Etherington, Bill

Michael, Alun

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fatchett, Derek

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Milburn, Alan

Flynn, Paul

Miller, Andrew

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Foulkes, George

Morgan, Rhodri

Fraser, John

Morley, Elliot

Fyfe, Maria

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Galbraith, Sam

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Gapes, Mike

Mowlam, Marjorie

George, Bruce

Mudie, George

Gerrard, Neil

Mullin, Chris

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Murphy, Paul

Godsiff, Roger

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Graham, Thomas

O'Hara, Edward

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Olner, William

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Grocott, Bruce

Pickthall, Colin

Gunnell, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hain, Peter

Pope, Greg

Hall, Mike

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hanson, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hardy, Peter

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Heppell, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Purchase, Ken

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hoey, Kate

Raynsford, Nick

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Reid, Dr John

Home Robertson, John

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

938

Rooney, Terry

Tyler, Paul

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Rowlands, Ted

Wallace, James

Ruddock, Joan

Walley, Joan

Salmond, Alex

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wareing, Robert N

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Watson, Mike

Short, Clare

Wicks, Malcolm

Skinner, Dennis

Wigley, Dafydd

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Spellar, John

Wilson, Brian

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Winnick, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Wise, Audrey

Stevenson, George

Worthington, Tony

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wright, Dr Tony

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tipping, Paddy

Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.

Trimble, David

Turner, Dennis

NOES

Adley, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Congdon, David

Aitken, Jonathan

Conway, Derek

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Amess, David

Cormack, Patrick

Ancram, Michael

Couchman, James

Arbuthnot, James

Cran, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Critchley, Julian

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Ashby, David

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Aspinwall, Jack

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Day, Stephen

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Devlin, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bates, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Batiste, Spencer

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Duncan, Alan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Bob

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Durant, Sir Anthony

Booth, Hartley

Dykes, Hugh

Boswell, Tim

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Elletson, Harold

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Emery, Sir Peter

Bowden, Andrew

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bowis, John

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Brazier, Julian

Evennett, David

Bright, Graham

Faber, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fabricant, Michael

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fishburn, Dudley

Budgen, Nicholas

Forman, Nigel

Burns, Simon

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forth, Eric

Butcher, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Butler, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Butterfill, John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Freeman, Roger

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

French, Douglas

Carrington, Matthew

Fry, Peter

Carttiss, Michael

Gale, Roger

Cash, William

Gallie, Phil

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gardiner, Sir George

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Garnier, Edward

Clappison, James

Gillan, Cheryl

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

939

Gorst, John

MacKay, Andrew

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Maclean, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Madel, David

Grylls, Sir Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Major, Rt Hon John

Hague, William

Malone, Gerald

Hamilton. Neil (Tatton)

Marland, Paul

Hampson, Dr Keith

Marlow, Tony

Hannam, Sir John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mates, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hawksley, Warren

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hayes, Jerry

Merchant, Piers

Heald, Oliver

Milligan, Stephen

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Mills, Iain

Hendry, Charles

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Horam, John

Moate, Roger

Hordern, Sir Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

Moss, Malcolm

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Needham, Richard

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Nelson, Anthony

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Nicholls, Patrick

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Jack, Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Norris, Steve

Jenkin, Bernard

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Phillip

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Ottaway, Richard

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Page, Richard

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Paice, James

Key, Robert

Patnick, Irvine

Kilfedder, Sir James

Patten, Rt Hon John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Pawsey, James

Kirkhope, Timothy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Knapman, Roger

Pickles, Eric

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Knox, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Rathbone, Tim

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Redwood, John

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Richards, Rod

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Riddick, Graham

Legg, Barry

Robathan, Andrew

Leigh, Edward

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Lidington, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Lord, Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Luff, Peter

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sackville, Tom

940

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Tracey, Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tredinnick, David

Shersby, Michael

Trend, Michael

Sims, Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walden, George

Soames, Nicholas

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Speed, Sir Keith

Waller, Gary

Spencer, Sir Derek

Ward, John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waterson, Nigel

Spink, Dr Robert

Watts, John

Spring, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Sproat, Iain

Wheeler, Sir John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Whitney, Ray

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Steen, Anthony

Widdecombe, Ann

Stephen, Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Stern, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Stewart, Allan

Willetts, David

Streeter, Gary

Wilshire, David

Sumberg, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sweeney, Walter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Sykes, John

Wolfson, Mark

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Thomason, Roy

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9697/92, relating to guide prices for fishery products for 1993, the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 7th December 1992, relating to total allowable catches and quotas for 1993, and the Government's intentions to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1993 consistent with the requirements for conservation of fishing stocks.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
    Clause 1

      LICENSING OF FISHING BOATS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after ("conditions)") insert—
      ("(a) after the words "sea fishing" there shall be inserted the words "(including conditions which do not relate directly to fishing.)", and
      (b)")
      Read a Second time.
      10.17 pm
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 3, after 'conditions', insert
      'agreed upon by all member countries of the European Community, and'.
      I make no apology for detaining the House. The Minister is looking slightly weary, if not punch drunk, following our good and important debate on fisheries policy. We will now deal with the equally pertinent and apposite final stages of the Bill before us.
      The purpose of the amendment is fairly clear. The House owes a debt to the House of Lords, where there were full, detailed and well-informed debates on this important Bill. The other place certainly recognises, even if the Government do not, that the circumstances facing the industry have changed significantly since the Bill was unveiled earlier this year. The industry does not believe that those circumstances have changed for the better.
      It is not easy to draft an amendment to a Lords amendment that is in order. I had a number of different attempts. I am sure other hon. Members have found the same difficulty. The amendment is not in the form in which I would have drafted it had it been left to a layman's common sense. However, I hope that the Minister accepts that is purpose is to achieve a level playing field—to use that horrible phrase—for the fishing industry throughout the Community.
      My own experience was reinforced about a fortnight ago at a well-organised meeting called by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Eyemouth in my constituency. That meeting drove home to me, if I ever needed reminding, the fact that the industry is angry at the way that it has been treated. Fishermen feel that, to stay in business, they are obliged to break the rules, take short cuts and find ways out of complying with the schemes and regulations that govern the industry.
      The meeting, which was both forthright and deeply heated, made it clear that the position that faces the industry need not have arisen and would not have done if the Government had paid a great deal more attention to the advice that the industry gave the Government at an early stage in the game. I have much time for the industry's pressure groups, especially the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. They are finding it increasingly difficult to restrain the more extreme voices that are now being raised
      942
      in the industry and to make sensible representations in a moderate way, because the Government are ignoring everything they say.
      People are at risk of going bankrupt and crewmen are being paid off, and the siren voices of those who are less responsible are becoming ever louder and threaten to drown out the representations of the established fishing organisations. That is a serious problem. If the extremists hold sway, the devil will take the hindmost. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the Government must start moving with the grain of the industry to achieve some of the improvements that are necessary.
      Rather than amend the Lords amendment, I should prefer to seek to persuade the Government to withdraw the Bill and start again. The Bill does not pay enough attention to the importance of the fishing industry to the coastal communities around the shores of the United Kingdom. The hinterlands of fishing ports rely for their continuing prosperity on the wealth that is generated by the industry. The Government are not paying enough attention to that point.
      In the past four or five years, a hotchpotch of piecemeal measures has been introduced, usually with insufficient notice, which has made it difficult for the industry to operate. There has been no sign of a long-term strategy.
      I shall deal now with the amendment, because, although this is an important measure, there is little advantage in drawing out the debate. I hope that the Minister will understand that.
      The fishing industry, as the Minister knows from doing the rounds of the ports, is intensely independent and competitive. What really riles fishermen about the Bill is that it is unjust. They are being asked to compete with other parts of the European Community with one hand tied unilaterally behind their back. They cannot understand the justification for that. The Bill has no positive conservation measures, but it introduces unfairness and discriminates against our home-based industry.
      It also affects some fundamental civil rights. It interferes with and constrains people's right to earn a living. That liberty to earn a living should be removed only in special circumstances, and we do not think that the Government can justify such a move.
      I try to keep up with social security laws as they affect our fishing communities. In view of the fishing industry's unusual circumstances—the fact that its earning capacity is being constrained at law on a statutory basis—I believe that the social security system should be amended so that crew who are laid off and denied an opportunity to make a living should be supported to a greater extent during their periods of enforced idleness.
      We have just concluded a debate on the mid-term common fisheries policy review, but we must establish some fairly clear principles. The policy must be even-handed. Now that the Government have established the precedent of being prepared to discriminate against our own industry in important respects, the Minister must say what such unilateral action will mean in the remaining 10 years of the common fisheries policy.
      I accept that the amendment may be technically deficient, but I hope that the Minister will understand the constraints under which Opposition parties operate. It would ensure equality of treatment within the industries of the European Community—nothing more, nothing less.

      943
      As we see it, it is an incontrovertible principle that there should be fairness among the fishing industries. We face compulsory tie-up schemes, net regimes and single net rules, all of which are being imposed unilaterally at short notice. That is unfair, and discriminates against our industry.
      I hope that I shall be supported by Conservative Members. If the Conservative party stands for anything, it should stand for fair competition. The Bill, even as amended, cannot ensure that under any circumstances. Even Conservative Members who do not have direct constituency interests in fishing should pay careful attention to what I have to say before they cast their votes tonight.
      I look forward with great interest to hearing how the Minister justifies the Bill and how he tackles the amendment.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: I congratulate the Government on the improvements that have been made to the Bill since Second Reading, but I am also in favour of the amendment, which goes to the heart of the difficulties —in fact, I would say the crisis—facing the fishing industry. I do not think that anyone would deny that there was a crisis; nor do I think that any fishermen—certainly not those in my constituency—would deny the need for conservation measures. Even professional fishermen accept the need for technical conservation measures, whether the details involve a different net regime, a change of tackle or compulsory tie-up.
      However, fishermen are concerned that the measures should be uniformly accepted and enforced across the Community. The difficulty with the Bill, despite its laudable aim of trying to preserve fish stocks, is that it disadvantages our professional fishermen. If it were to be adopted throughout the Community, and if our fishermen could believe that there would be fishery inspectors throughout the Community to enforce it with the same enthusiasm and rigour as on the quays of our fishing ports, they would be prepared to discuss and accept much of it. The difficulty is that the Bill does not affect our competitors in the Community; it will simply disadvantage our fishermen. That seems a curious situation.
      10.30 pm
      I readily accept the idea of round table talks. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been assiduous in talking to the industry in the past—but although the industry is willing to discuss technical measures and effort control, it is united in its view that it has now become the victim of unfair competition.
      When the issue of the single market is raised, I invariably use three criteria to judge whether it is working. First, I would hope that a Devon business man would be able to drive his car to France and use his cellular telephone there. The reality is that he cannot, because none of the European countries is willing to accept the allocation of radio frequencies across Europe.
      My second criterion would be whether a Devon business man could catch a British Airways plane in Madrid and fly to Rome. The truth is that there is no single market, because British Airways cannot pick up passengers in second countries and take them to third countries.
      The third criterion that I use to judge whether we have a free Community is whether Devon fishermen can fish in
      944
      French waters. The truth is that, in this country, fishing regulations are enforced with a single-minded enthusiasm not matched by our competitors anywhere else in Europe. We have heard all the apocryphal stories on the theme that we have 180 fishery inspectors in this country whereas there are only 18 in Spain—and they are all based in Madrid. The fact remains that our fishermen are severely disadvantaged.
      The intention behind the Bill is laudable. It is clear that it will go through tonight, and the Minister is well aware of the depth of feeling in our ports, and the concerns about the future expressed by our fishermen. In all honesty, they do not have a future at the moment. So long as the French and the Spanish continue to quota-hop, our fishermen's future is bleak indeed. They uniformly oppose the Bill, not because they oppose conservation but because they oppose Europe. I failed to catch your eye during our earlier debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but several hon. Members talked about the fact that foreign fishermen can fish in our waters. Nothing has been done about that, and there is nothing in the Bill to deal with the problem.
      I welcome the conservation effort that the Bill will make, but I wish that it could be applied throughout Europe. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will ensure that our European partners are willing to enforce the same kinds of effort control and tie-up regulations as will be achieved through the Bill. If he can give me that assurance, he will certainly receive my support.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have been involved in the proceedings on the Bill since they began. It started off as a bad Bill; it has not finished up as a much better one. Now that it has reached the limit of its consideration in the Commons, it is almost certain to be passed—by the brute votes of Conservative Members and because Conservative Members representing fishing ports have effectively betrayed their fishing constituents by voting to deprive them of the right to go to sea and to impose a closure on them.
      I am sympathetic to what I assume to be the intention of the amendment—I say "assume", because the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) told us nothing about what the amendment would achieve or how it would achieve it. Presumably, he is trying to ensure that the days-at-sea limitation will not be introduced unless similar limitations are operated in respect of other European Community member states. I agree that it is utterly wrong that our fishermen should be limited in the amount of time that they can go to sea but that similar limits should not be imposed on other fishermen—who will come in and clean up the grounds while our fishermen are compulsorily tied up under the Government's proposals.
      The principle of the amendment is exactly right, but the way in which the hon. Gentleman has gone about drafting it is incomprehensible to me. The Bill amends the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, which allows the imposition of conditions on licences. The Lords amendment to those conditions on licences says that they can include
      "conditions which do not relate directly to fishing".
      The amendment would insert after "conditions" the words
      "agreed upon by all member countries of the European Community"
      and so would not exactly achieve what the hon. Gentleman tells us it would achieve. It is the product of a noble

      945
      aspiration, but the hon. Member and his party have gone about things in an incomprehensible fashion, and I do not see that it would achieve what it sets out to achieve.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: Let me speak in support of the amendment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has already admitted that it is technically imperfect but it nevertheless drives at the very important principle of equivalence. It is all very well the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) noting that the amendment is technically imperfect. He will see from the amendment paper that the amendments tabled by the Labour party are starred because they were not tabled in time. Far be it from me to have to defend the Liberal Democrats, but I felt it right to make that point. I repeat that, although the amendment is imperfect, it drives at an important principle.
      A few minutes ago, the Minister was saying what a great consultation process he had engaged in with the fishing industry. He gave us a long list of meetings that he had held recently, as if that proved that he was a Minister who consulted the industry. But that of itself is not consultation. Consultation involves not just having meetings but listening at those meetings and then taking the appropriate action. I presume that it is no coincidence that the Minister's next meeting is to take place simultaneously with the huge fishing demonstration that is to be held in Edinburgh on Friday.
      The Minister says that he is engaged in a process of consultation. The challenge for him this evening is to show us that the process is meaningful. All of us from fishing communities and constituencies remember the Committee stage of the Bill, during which the Minister finessed Conservative Back Benchers' concern by apparently making commitments in connection with the question whether restrictions would be imposed on fishermen in the United Kingdom without similar restrictions being imposed on fishermen thoughout the European Community.
      946
      Some Opposition Members may argue that it is not all that difficult to fool those on the Conservative Back Benches, particularly when they are of a mind to allow themselves to be gulled. Even so, there is no question but that what the Minister has done does not provide for the sort of undertaking that was sought when amendments were being debated in Committee.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) withdrew his amendment on that occasion, and allowed himself to be taken in by the Minister's apparent assurances. There is no doubt, however, that the intention behind the amendment was to ensure that the principle of equivalence applied and that restrictions were not unilaterally and discriminatorily imposed on fishermen in this country.
      May I turn the Minister's attention in particular to the letter that he has been sent by the chief executives of both the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations? That letter, dated 17 November, deals directly with the point at issue in this debate. The two federations are quite reasonably asking why the assurances that were apparently given have not been translated into the Bill and what guarantee there is that "effective steps"—the words that the Minister used on that occasion—will be taken in other countries.
      What guarantee or objective criteria can the Minister cite to show that effective steps are being taken in other Community countries? The Minister can gainsay me if I am wrong, but I understand that the letter of 17 November has not yet received a reply. In line with the process of consultation, when will those two chief executives receive a reply to that letter? Will that reply be anything more than "taking note", "having meetings" and, apparently, "listening", with still no effective action being taken to redeem the apparent promises that the Minister was prepared to make from the Government Front Bench when he thought he was in trouble when the Bill was debated some months ago?
      Mr. David Harris: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I do so in response to the point that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has just made. I am one of those Conservative Back Benchers who, on Report and Third Reading of this Bill, was involved in a series of consultations and possibly negotiations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      What the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has just said is true to the extent that I was told that, before the Government acted on tying up, the Minister would have to convince the House that equivalent measures were being taken by other member states. As the hon. Gentleman said, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied to the debate on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), the phrase was changed to "effective measures" being taken by other member states. I do not view that with great suspicion. Perhaps the significance had not dawned on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the difference between the words "equivalent" and "effective". I believe that there is a difference.
      The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) puts me in some difficulty, because I fully support the sentiments behind it. However, the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that, like a lot of things about the Liberal party, the intentions are good, but it will not be very good in practice. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman rightly admitted that the amendment is very defective.
      However, I will vote for the amendment tonight. Despite all the imperfections in the amendment, it is important for the industry to be convinced that somehow or other it will not have imposed on it tying-up measures that are not going to be imposed—to a degree at least—on other member states. I will support the amendment, although I do not think that it will be carried.
      As I said in our earlier debate, the really important vote will not be taken tonight on any of the amendments. The really important vote will be taken some time in the new year, when the order is to be laid before this House and another place to introduce tying up—if the Government go ahead with it. As I have already said, I will vote against that order.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) wants to tie up the Minister of State, because he is guilty of a lot.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to representations that he has received from fishermen in Eyemouth. He will be aware that a number of fishermen from my constituency work out of the harbour at Eyemouth; that was why I attended a public meeting in that town two weeks ago. I listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had to say on that occasion and I am sure that we both listened very carefully to the strong feelings expressed by fishermen, their families and others from the community who depend heavily on the fishing industry.
      The anger of those people was clear. I got the impression that they would like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire to vote against the Government perhaps even more consistently than he does. The anger of those people and their families was clear. They certainly do not want the Bill to give any more
      948
      powers to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Scottish Office to impose arbitrary restrictions on the industry. They do not trust the Minister and his Government. Understandably, they are apprehensive about the possible effects of such legislation. They do not want more draconian powers to be imposed under the Bill.
      10.45 pm
      I am profoundly concerned about what is happening to the fishing industry. Of course we must have conservation, but it must be seen to be fair and rational. Frankly, the way in which it is imposed is neither fair nor rational. When fishermen are required to reduce their fishing effort as a consequence of conservation measures, they should be entitled to at least the same level of transitional support which farmers receive. I am worried about the problems which processors and consumers face.
      I was shocked by a letter I received from a constituent the other day. He had been told by the fishmonger who regularly goes around the doors in the village by van that he would not be coming until next year because fish supplies had dried up. He wrote to ask whether the Tory Government had introduced food rationing on top of all the other deprivations that we have at present.
      We need a fair approach to the fishing industry throughout the European Community. If the amendment can help to achieve that objective, it is worth supporting.
      Mr. James Wallace: I endorse the comments that have been made, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in moving the amendment but by the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The essence of the amendment, albeit perhaps not with technical perfection, is to emphasise that our British fishermen resent the fact that they—to use the words that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) used yesterday to describe the position in Lochinver in his constituency—have been put into the brutal straitjacket of limited fishing days at sea. The same restriction does not apply to their continental competitors. It is frustrating for them to be tied up and not allowed to prosecute a fishery when some of their competitors from other EC countries are allowed to do so.
      The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred to a letter which has been sent by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to the Minister in which they give some colouring and substance to the undertaking which the Minister gave during the debate on the amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). The Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations suggested an amendment to the noble Lords in another place. When their Lordships sought to move that amendment, they were told by Earl Howe that it was a wrecking amendment, although they were trying to give substance to what the Minister had said.
      In an earlier debate this evening, the Minister said that there were Lords amendments which honoured his commitment. We will be interested to know what those amendments are. The Minister said that we would need his lawyer's briefing to explain them to us.
      In moving the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, Earl Howe referred to two important developments

      949
      that had taken place in the Bill while it was being debated elsewhere. The first development was that there would be parliamentary scrutiny. Such scrutiny must be welcomed. The second was that there would be greater powers to enforce the provisions of the Bill. At no time did Earl Howe refer to any amendment which was significant and would bring continental fishermen in line with the British fishing industry.
      I believe that the undertaking that was given has not been honoured, certainly in the spirit, and I am doubtful whether it has been honoured in the letter. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I wish to press the matter tonight. Both sides of the House agree that it is important that stringent rules should be applied fairly to fishermen throughout the Community.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise that I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1. The Lords amendment is a fine amendment because it relates to conditions other than those specifically defined as fishing. I support amendment (a) even though I am not happy with the way in which it was presented. I am not happy that fishermen were described as extremists. The fishermen whom I have met in discussions have been angry men. That does not make them extremists. They were angry, but they should never be seen as extremists. They are fine, decent and honourable men who have been pushed to the limit by a rotten Bill.
      If restrictive regulations are to be imposed in the framework of what we must now call a European Community fleet, those restrictions should not be applied against the United Kingdom segment of that fleet. I said earlier that I hoped that, if the Bill became an Act of Parliament, it would be challengeable in the European Court of Justice. It places an unequal and unfair burden on the fishermen of the United Kingdom vis-a-vis other EC fishermen, who fish—dare I say it these days?—in our waters. Perhaps that is too chauvinistic for some of the fervid Europeans on the Conservative Benches, and one or two on the Opposition Benches.
      If restrictive regulations are to be imposed on fishermen, they should be European Community—
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Universal.
      Dr. Godman: I thank my hon. Friend. The regulations should certainly be EC-wide. They must be seen to be fair and reasonable if they are to be obeyed. For a law to work effectively, it must in the last analysis engender the acceptance of those whose behaviour will be restricted by it. The Bill is rotten for our fishermen. The amendment improves it slightly. That is why I support it, with the regret that the label "extremists" was used against our fishermen.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: I concur with the point made about the Minister's assurances. It was said that they were not fulfilled in the spirit in which they were given. It is a matter of regret that some hon. Members took those assurances and did not take the chance to table amendments on Report, when we had a better chance of being successful than now, when we must seek to amend amendments, with all the restrictions that that brings.
      950
      For the record and so that there is no misunderstanding, will the Minister make clear what he means by the phrase
      "do not relate directly to fishing"?
      Fishing interests need to be clear about what that phrase means.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: My hon. Friends the Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) well deployed the arguments in support of the amendment. But as my fishermen in the port of Lochinver demonstrated yesterday in a manner which was understood throughout the United Kingdom to be a demonstration against the policy of the Government and not against the actions of French fishermen, it is incumbent on me to speak in support of amendment (a). I must also make it plain that we seek equity of treatment between our fishermen and those of other EC countries.
      A common fisheries policy with the purpose of conserving stocks around the littoral of Europe cannot be implemented if we repatriate to this country the power to treat our fishermen less well than do the other member countries of the EC.
      I have heard it suggested that the drafting of the amendment is defective. It seems to me to be quite well drafted and its purpose is clear. The issue behind the amendment goes to the heart of the debate in this country.
      I hope that the spirit of support evinced by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) will be broadly based on the Conservative Benches. His speech should have moved a number of others to follow the cross-party lead. One of the best aspects of a debate of this kind is that it tends to draw in those hon. Members who know a little about what they are debating, which is not always true at this time of night. It is a pity that more Conservative Members are not present to reflect the strength of feeling, but there certainly are some rare birds on the Conservative Benches.
      When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will not—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am seeking to follow the hon. Member, but there seems to be an underlying buzz of conversation.
      Mr. Maclennan: I hope that the Minister will not rely on defective drafting as a reason for attacking or for refusing to support the amendment. He must deal with the principle behind it, which is one that all hon. Members concerned with the future of the fishing industry are attached to.
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I shall certainly not take refuge in drafting, however defective it may be. Amendment (a) would require Ministers to seek the agreement of all other member states to all the licence conditions attaching to United Kingdom fishing licences. Our present licensing system is used to implement certain European Community requirements, but its management rests entirely with the British Government. It would be wrong for other member states to have a say in matters of national Government. The amendment shoots away the national management of our fisheries policy, and we have spent a whole debate being told that the House does not want that, and that we must not pass control to management committees, as we want it all in the hands of Ministers.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Harris rose—
      Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
      Mr. Curry: No, I shall not give way; I shall answer the questions. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked me—
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that hon. Members know the rule well. If a Minister or any other Member does not give way, Members must resume their seats.
      Mr. Curry: I cannot commend amendment (a) to the House. I commend Lords amendment No. I, which the House will have to consider in response to what has been said, and I shall take the opportunity to explain it.
      The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 empowers Ministers to regulate sea fishing through a licensing system. When fishermen receive a fishing licence, they are required to observe all the conditions and rules contained in it. That is primarily to enable fisheries departments to administer and to enforce compliance with the fishing restrictions set out in the licence and to cover fishing and non-fishing activities. For example, it is a condition of the licence that skippers always carry it and its variations on board.
      Recently, the sheriff at Banff decided that a licence condition, which requires fishermen to radio in when they cross the 4 degrees west line, to the north of Scotland—this is all part of the mackerel flexibility question—was ultra vires under the enabling legislation, as the Minister has no power to impose a licensing condition other than when the vessel is fishing. We believe that under section 4(6) the powers go wider than that, but if the sheriff's decision were sustained on appeal it could have serious implications for the administration and enforcement of other licensing conditions which do not relate explicitly to fishing, such as visiting conditions for quota hopper vessels.
      Because of those potential implications, the Bill has been amended to put the matter beyond doubt. Under Lords amendment No. 1, section 4(6) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act will be amended to include an explicit reference to the fact that licence conditions may cover non-fishing activities, provided that they are for the purpose of regulating sea fishing. I commend that amendment to the House, and I do not commend that tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: I had not intended to intervene at this time, but the Minister's attitude is extraordinary and unacceptable. I have never been so angry about the way in which the Minister has responded to any other amendment.
      The amendment directly affects the livelihoods of many men. In the past couple of weeks in Cornwall men have drowned, arguably because they felt forced to go out to fish in all weathers to make a living. If that was not a factor in those two recent cases, it may be in the future as a result of measures adopted by the Government.
      11 pm
      I have spoken to friends of those who lost their lives and, understandably and rightly, they feel deeply upset. They associate those deaths with Government policies. I
      952
      find it extraordinary that the Minister should refuse to give way to any intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), from my hon. Friends and from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who represents the Scottish National party. The only possible conclusion is that the Minister feels that he has no proper response to the arguments made.
      Mr. Salmond: We have heard from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) how the wording "equivalent measures" was changed to "effective measures" after assurances had been given in the House. Does the hon. Gentleman judge that the Minister refused to give way because of the way in which the Government managed to get round the concerns of their own Back Benchers who represent fishing communities? They managed to get themselves off the hook by using parliamentary chicanery.
      Mr. Taylor: I agree. I believe that the Minister has misled hon. Members; we did not place such an interpretation on his earlier comments. The hon. Member for St. Ives has already said that he believes that there is a crucial difference between the two sets of wording. I do not know whether he feels that that difference was directly misleading.
      Mr. Harris: I do not want any misunderstanding about this point. The word "equivalent" was used to me, but I do not in any way impugn the reputation of my hon. Friend the Minister as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), in typical fashion, has tried to do. I do not believe for one moment that chicanery was involved. There is a considerable difference in the wording but, on the part of Ministers, it is an honest one. I do not believe for one minute that we have been deliberately misled.
      Mr. Taylor: I accept that the hon. Gentleman may hold that view, but it is not shared by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. If things had been put differently, votes might have been cast in a different way. The Government do not have a great majority and the outcome might have been different.
      The hon. Member for St. Ives tried to get the Minister to give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is not acceptable for the Minister to treat the House as he has, especially on an issue of such sensitivity which affects the livelihoods of people in so many constituencies. By any stretch of the imagination, those people do not have an easy livelihood to make at the best of times.
      Given the time of night, the number of hon. Members in the Chamber is large and reflects the degree of concern felt by Members who represent fishermen whose livelihoods are at risk. All those on the Opposition Benches who heard the Minister's appalling response will be keen to vote on the amendment. I hope that Conservative Members in the Chamber will feel the same and will express their opinion of the way in which the Minister has sought to respond to the amendment.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish to intervene briefly because I am shocked at how the Minister, who is usually fair-minded, has responded to this debate. He has made no substantive response to the points made by Opposition or Conservative Back Benchers.
      Last week I spent several hours in Padstow, a small fishing community in my constituency where five men have lost their lives at sea in the past two weeks. I do not

      953
      necessarily suggest that economic conditions have driven people to take risks that they should not have taken, but how can I return to that community and say that the Minister has failed to deal with the vital issue of equivalence between our fishing fleets and those of the other member states of the European Community?
      The Minister was given an opportunity to explain fully and clearly why the equivalence promise that he gave to the House will not now be fulfilled. He should have explained how he would guarantee that our fishing fleets would not have to operate with one hand behind their backs, but he failed to deal with the issue. Indeed, he did not even begin to deal with it but indulged in the pettifogging that one expects from other members of the Government but not from him. In the past he has been a good friend of the fishing industry. Will he now try to meet the requirements, not only of hon. Members who represent fishing communities but of the nation at large, which feels that the fishing industry has been badly let down and looks as though it will be let down still further in future?
      It is not simply a matter of legalistics—the difference between "equivalence" and "equal effectiveness". The industry and the general public are asking for a cast-iron guarantee that the Minister will not put in place measures which cause our industry to work at a disadvantage to other member states and competitor industries.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—
      The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 216.

      Division No. 100]

      [11.6 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Ainger, Nick

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

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Denham, John

      Alton, David

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dowd, Jim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Barnes, Harry

      Eastham, Ken

      Battle, John

      Etherington, Bill

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Beggs, Roy

      Flynn, Paul

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Benton, Joe

      Foulkes, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fyfe, Maria

      Betts, Clive

      Gapes, Mike

      Boateng, Paul

      Gerrard, Neil

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bradley, Keith

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hall, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hanson, David

      Cann, Jamie

      Hardy, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Harris, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clelland, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Home Robertson, John

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hoyle, Doug

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hutton, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      954

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Pope, Greg

      Jowell, Tessa

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Leighton, Ron

      Raynsford, Nick

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rooney, Terry

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Salmond, Alex

      McAllion, John

      Short, Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Spellar, John

      McFall, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Stevenson, George

      McMaster, Gordon

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mahon, Alice

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

      Trimble, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Turner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Tyler, Paul

      Michael, Alun

      Wallace, James

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Milburn, Alan

      Watson, Mike

      Miller, Andrew

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wilson, Brian

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wise, Audrey

      Morley, Elliot

      Worthington, Tony

      Mullin, Chris

      Wright, Dr Tony

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Olner, William

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pickthall, Colin

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Nigel Jones.

      Pike, Peter L.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Clappison, James

      Alexander, Richard

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Colvin, Michael

      Amess, David

      Congdon, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Conway, Derek

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cran, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Bates, Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Day, Stephen

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Booth, Hartley

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Duncan, Alan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bowis, John

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Eggar, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Elletson, Harold

      Bright, Graham

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burns, Simon

      Evennett, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Faber, David

      Butterfill, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Carrington, Matthew

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Cash, William

      Forman, Nigel

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Forth, Eric

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      955

      Freeman, Roger

      Norris, Steve

      French, Douglas

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Gallie, Phil

      Patnick, Irvine

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Pickles, Eric

      Garnier, Edward

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gorst, John

      Redwood, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Richards, Rod

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hague, William

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hayes, Jerry

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Sackville, Tom

      Hendry, Charles

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Horam, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

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

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Shersby, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Sims, Roger

      Hunter, Andrew

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Jack, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Key, Robert

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Spring, Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sproat, Iain

      Knapman, Roger

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Stephen, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Streeter, Gary

      Knox, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sykes, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Legg, Barry

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Leigh, Edward

      Thomason, Roy

      Lidington, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lightbown, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Lord, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Maclean, David

      Waller, Gary

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Ward, John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Madel, David

      Watts, John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Wells, Bowen

      Malone, Gerald

      Whitney, Ray

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Whittingdale, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Wilkinson, John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Willetts, David

      Merchant, Piers

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Mills, Iain

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wood, Timothy

      Moate, Roger

      Yeo, Tim

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Amendment to the Lords amendment accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      956
      ("(6C) The Ministers shall by order make provision as to the principles on which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at for the purposes of any condition included in a licence by virtue of subsection (6)(c) above.")
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 2, after 'provision' insert
      'implementing any European Community agreement'.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments (d), (b) and (c) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6, 12 and 16.
      Mr. Kirkwood: In our previous debate, we dealt with equivalence. Amendments (a) and (b) were designed to support our earlier arguments, and there is no purpose in rehearsing them. I detect that the Minister is slightly punch drunk, as I suggested earlier. He has been sitting on the Front Bench for a good many hours without food, water or respite of any kind. If he can find it in his largesse to take up the question of equivalence, I shall be grateful. It is an extremely important issue.
      As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said during our debate on the first amendment, it is important that, when orders are laid that flow as a consequence of the Bill's enactment, the House should treat them extremely seriously. There is usually a one-and-a-half-hour debate in circumstances, such as tonight, when right hon. and hon. Members want to get home to their beds, which is understandable. We should have a guarantee, however, that the procedure will be affirmative rather than negative. The Minister may say that amendment (c) will not achieve that objective, but it is my best stab at requiring the Government to bring before the House orders that flow from the Bill to be considered under the affirmative procedure.
      It must be borne in mind that the Bill will give unfettered powers to the Government for 1993 and for all time. These draconian powers should be exercised only if orders are brought before the House, when changes are sought to be made, under the affirmative procedure. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment on that basis. I hope also that he will say a wee bit more about the substance of it than he did when dealing with the previous group.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: It would be wrong to let these matters pass so that we might the earlier return home to bed. It is a bad Bill, and the principle that is set out in the amendment is a good and important one. The amendment is far better than amendment No. 1. I think that we should divide the House also on amendment No. 2. It is more sensible than amendment No. 1 and it goes straight to the point.
      It is impossible and wrong to impose on the British fishing industry restrictions on its ability to go to sea when those restrictions are not equally imposed on competing fishing industries—competing for the same stocks in the same grounds in the North sea—with which it has to deal. There should be a limitation on days at sea only when the industries of other European countries face a similar limitation.
      The Minister proposes to go ahead because of his failure to implement a decommissioning scheme early enough to reduce the British effort to the levels dictated by the multi-annual guidance programme. That is his fault

      957
      and responsibility. It would be far better if he admitted that and said that the measure would be introduced, if necessary, in the interest of conservation ony if a similar restriction were to be placed on other European countries. The bitterness and antagonism of British fishermen when tied up and seeing grounds still fished by competitors unrestrained and unrestricted would be unacceptable.
      Amendment (d) sets out one of the best arguments that we deployed in Committee, which is that the Bill is not a conservation measure. Instead, it will encourage vessels to put to sea to catch as much fish as they can during the time that they are allowed to be at sea. It would be far better to encourage the use of better gear, larger meshes and square mesh panels—to insist on gear options—as an alternative to preventing vessels from going to sea. We must encourage vessels to catch bigger and more marketable fish rather than catching massive quantities of small fish. That would be best achieved by a gear option.
      The Minister could make better use of his sanction on days at sea by insisting that vessels employ better gear and then giving exemptions from the days-at-sea limitation to those that comply. That is the sensible way to deal with the problem; it is the carrot-and-stick technique. However, that can be achieved only if the amendment is accepted.
      I hope that the Minister will clarify what is promising to be a most interesting argument about exactly what assurances were given to Conservative Members of Parliament to get them to support the Bill the last time that it was before the House. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said that he was assured that the Bill would not be implemented until equivalent measures were introduced in the other member states—as the amendment would achieve.
      On Third Reading, the Minister said
      "We should not introduce such a resolution unless we are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps".—[Official Report, 14 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 1027.]
      He also gave the private assurance to Conservative Members that he would not take action until he was convinced that our European partners were taking steps as stringent as Britain's to ensure that they abided by the quotas.
      Those are three different matters. It is clear that Conservative Members wanted to be persuaded, encouraged or tricked into voting for the Bill. It is also clear that there is a strange ambivalence that will leave a curious smell about the Bill unless we are told exactly what was said and why that assurance has not been incorporated in the Bill.
      Mr. Salmond: When I suggested during our previous debate parliamentary chicanery, it was obvious from the Minister's demeanour that he was not too pleased. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, the House is entitled to know how the word "equivalent" came to be translated into the word "effective". They mean two different things, as we now know.
      The Minister could defend himself by making the point that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby made very well—that people can be fooled only if they want to be fooled. Those of us who did not want to be fooled and who wanted an assurance that equivalent steps would have to be taken
      958
      in every other member state are entitled to know what assurances were given by whom to whom. In other words, what did they know, and when did they know it?
      I sincerely hope that the Minister will answer that question rather than try to sweep it aside and without discussing what every hon. Member from every fishing constituency is entitled to know.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Lords amendments, which amendments (a), (b) and (c) would amend, are a move in the right direction. However, they could provide an opportunity for the Government to make proposals for decommissioning without actually implementing them. In the absence of any action on decommissioning, the Government could simply make orders that would affect time at sea. The two matters have to be linked, because it is the linkage that has bought off some of the opposition.
      Amendment (a) on equivalence relates to the previous debate, so we do not need to linger long on it. It goes to the heart of the dispute between the fishing industry and the Government, which led to the demonstration in Lochinver. It is of immense concern to the fishermen in my constituency that, if the Bill is not amended, the Government could introduce a restriction on days at sea and require consecutive days to be spent in port, at the Government's behest.
      Similar provisions do not apply to boats from other EC countries. At least a third of the Scottish fleet could be destroyed, and it would be unconscionable if measures comparable to those in force were perpetuated beyond this calendar year without the House having a direct say on what is being done.
      Amendment (c) would provide that a debate takes place, so that the House could consider whether the Government had discharged their obligations to give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning and whether, in the circumstances of the stocks available, it made sense to introduce a scheme to limit effort. Without amendments (a) and (c), the fishing industry will be left in a parlous predicament, unprotected and unprotectable by the House.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Nick Ainger: I support the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members but wish to speak to amendment (d), which stands in the names of my hon. Friends.
      In our earlier debate, it was revealed that the Irish capacity to fish, and therefore presumably their total allowable catch, will increase. My constituents who fish out of Milford Haven will experience a significant reduction. The Minister will tell us that next year they will face the problem of tying up while still trying to earn a living with a reduced TAC.
      There are only 60 miles between my constituency and the coast of Ireland. What do I tell my constituents whose boats will have to be tied up when their Irish colleagues are fishing waters that my constituents have fished for decades?
      It is unacceptable that, despite having had the presidency of the Fisheries Committee for six months, the Minister cannot give an assurance that our partners in Europe have at least agreed in principle to discuss the days-at-sea limits. He has not been able to offer that assurance, because they know that from a conservation point of view the proposal is a load of rubbish. It is only

      959
      a sop to enable the Government to introduce a limited decommissioning scheme. If it could be such a wonderful success, why are our partners not adopting it, and why has it not been proposed before?
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I want to deal with a problem that arises from the days-at-sea idea. Before doing so, I must say that the whole idea is viewed by fishermen in my constituency as quite absurd and as ineffective a conservation measure as set-aside, but without the compensation. It has all the disadvantages of encouraging people to make the maximum productive use of the time—or, by analogy, the land available to them—while affording no compensation to those who are affected. It is not a sensible conservation measure, so I support the continued pursuit of the gear option, to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred and to which I sought to refer in the earlier debate. It is ludicrous that we should devote so much time, legislative attention and civil service activity to unselective so-called conservation measures that do not have the right effect and do not ensure that the fishing effort concentrates on mature fish and avoids harming future stocks.
      The Minister is well aware of the effects of the proposals on people who will in future be denied their traditional right to fish for salmon and who, under present plans, will not be allowed to have their days-at-sea for salmon fishery counted towards a white fishery in the future even though they are precluded from continuing their salmon fishery. That applies especially to the sons of existing fishermen who, thus far, have had every reason to expect that, under the law, they would be granted licences to continue their salmon fishery. They now see that salmon fishery being phased out. They will be driven to another fishery, not through choice but because of the effects of a Government decision with which I and they disagree profoundly.
      The Minister of State recently listened to my representations on that subject at a meeting in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Both Ministers led me into believing that they were making strenuous efforts to devise a scheme under which the problems of the salmon fishermen could be recognised. It is the Minister's jobs to ensure that the officials in their Ministry work out a scheme. Whatever bureaucratic obstacles are placed on the Minister's desks, it is their job to say what must be done in the interests of common justice. If people have been deprived of a fishery because of a decision that the fishery would be better managed if it were conducted without their participation, and those people then have to turn to the white fishery, they are in effect tied up because they do not have an entitlement of days from the base year of 1991. I do not know whether the Minister can deal with that issue tonight, but I want an assurance that he will find a solution.
      Mr. Morley: I want to speak to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends which refers specifically to the gear option. On Report, the Minister gave assurances that the conservation measures in the Bill would be equivalent to European measures. If that is so, why is a gear option available in European Community proposals on effort controls, which might involve days in port, whereas no such option is available in the Bill?
      Mr. Curry: I am certainly not punch drunk, but nor am I quite as fresh as I was this morning. Some of my
      960
      colleagues have been with me all day since we started in a Committee which was scrutinising bananas, which is more attractive even than the problem of Scottish haddock.
      What did I promise? During the passage of the Bill, I made it absolutely clear that the criteria were effective measures to meet MAGP targets. I did not whisper that or scratch it on a piece of paper behind the Box. Everyone who subsequently voted heard those words clearly. The only criteria by which we can judge are the MAGP targets. We have agreed the targets and a mechanism to achieve them. The Commission has undertaken to produce annual reports on the implemention of the targets.
      There will, of course, be an order to implement the initial freeze, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) clearly stated. In line with all the rules in the Bill, the negative resolution will be employed. [Interruption.] We have accepted the case for an affirmative resolution with respect to any subsequent reduction to days-at-sea or extension of the under-10 m fleet. That is entirely in line with the promises that I gave. In other respects, they are in the mainstream of fisheries legislation.
      In response to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the difference between the gear option and that included in the Bill is that the Commission's measure would affect 700 or 800 vessels. We do not intend to accept it, but that is what it would do. One can control that to some extent, although the hon. Gentleman must admit that there have been difficulties with previous gear options. The measure will affect 4,000 vessels; clearly, to try to monitor and sustain a gear option over so many vessels is a different matter. However, technical conservation is an important element in our fisheries policy. That is precisely why I shall hold a forum on it with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in the new year.
      I acknowledge the question asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the salmon fishery. We are working hard and we shall try to find a solution, because that matter is close to my heart.
      Mr. Salmond: The Minister cites the Official Report, and we can all read that—but we would like to know what assurances were given elsewhere, by whom, to whom. All hon. Members are entitled to know whether assurances were given about equivalent measures in any other place by any other Minister, and to whom.
      Mr. Curry: The pledge that was given was given from the Dispatch Box, on the record, with all hon. Members present to listen to it, all fully aware of what the promise would be. That is what I promised, and that is what has been put into the Bill.
      I commend to the House the amendment passed in another place, but not the amendments tabled to it.
      Question put and negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      ("(6D) Before considering what action to take under subsection (6C) above, the Ministers shall first give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in order to achieve a significant reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet."")
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 3, leave out

      961
      'first give due consideration to'
      and insert 'implement'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendments (b) and (c) to the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Wallace: It will be obvious that there is a world of difference between merely giving consideration to something and implementing it—in this case, a decommissioning scheme. In many respects, my amendment goes to the heart of the issue underlying the Bill. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments again. We have heard them on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. We have also had a fair debate on the issue earlier today.
      We should not allow the amendment to be passed without again putting on the record the outrage that many fishermen feel at the compulsory tie-ups that the Bill will impose upon them. In our earlier debate, the Minister took exception when I contrasted what is happening to fishermen with what is happening to shop owners. Often, people engaged in the fishing industry have laid out considerable capital to buy their boats and equipment. If the Bill is enacted as it stands, they will not be allowed to earn a return on that capital for a given number of days in the year. That is a serious restriction to place on anyone's business. That is why the suggestion has caused such outrage and attracted such opposition.
      Many of us have argued over the years that if the Government are serious about reducing capacity so that the capacity of our fleet is more in line with the fishing opportunities available, the best way of achieving that is by implementing a decommissioning scheme. That case has often been argued in the House, and the House of Lords Select Committee found that the scheme that the Government suggested in February was too little too late.
      I believe that it is thanks to Lord Radnor that their Lordships accepted the amendment, so that the Government's mind would be concentrated on decommissioning and they would be obliged to consider that idea first before imposing days-at-sea restrictions. We are grateful to the noble Lord for that, and to their Lordships for supporting him.
      However, when on Third Reading in another place the Government said that they would not oppose the amendment, many of us were immediately suspicious that they did so because the Minister could simply say, "I have given due consideration to the idea, but I shall not do much about it. I shall go ahead and introduce the order to impose days-at-sea". The Minister's smile is a giveaway. Clearly, that was the Government's intention. No doubt, if we could find proof that they had never given the matter any consideration, the Minister would be liable to answer a case for judicial review, but finding proof would he well-nigh impossible. That is why we believe that the provision should be tightened. We must implement a scheme of decommissioning.
      Let me express considerable sympathy with and support for the other amendments in the group, tabled by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), which would provide for an effective decommissioning scheme involving consultation with fishermen's associations. The hon. Gentleman shied away when asked
      962
      how much decommissioning would cost, however. The House of Lords Select Committee report suggests that it would cost four or five times the amount that the Government have placed on the table. During the general election campaign, the Liberal Democrats cited a figure of £100 million. It is a matter for regret that the new designer Labour party always seems afraid to put figures on its proposals. No doubt the electorate judges it accordingly.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Morley: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, at this stage and given the flux in the fishing industry, it is not up to us to put a figure on the scheme? I can assure him that, when the time comes for the electorate to make its choice democratically, we will give it a properly detailed and costed fishing policy for the fishing ports.
      Mr. Wallace: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall be happy to give way to him again if he will tell the House how much the Labour party suggested a decommissioning policy would cost at the last general election, when the electorate had precisely that choice. I do not recall any figure ever having come from the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman is under an obligation to give a ball-park figure. It is not a question of our waiting for the next election for an effective decommissioning scheme to be brought into being; we are trying to influence the Government today. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that there is to be no decommissioning of any value or size until a Labour Government are returned to power? Heaven help the fishing industry if it has to wait that long. We are all under an obligation to try to persuade the Minister to cite a realistic figure for decommissioning. We believe that the £25 million, welcome though it is, is nowhere near enough to have the necessary effect.
      Similarly, the Minister is under an obligation to tell the House how much of that £25 million will come from the European Community. Ministers have never told us how much would be returned to the Government through taxation of the sums paid to fishermen in decommissioning payments. We need that information if we are to get a proper measure of what the net effect would be. The Government have readily called into aid the amount that we would have to contribute under the Fontainebleau agreement, but they have never said how much they would recover in taxation.
      The arguments for decommissioning have been advanced on many occasions and do not need to be laboured. In reply to the debate on the previous group of amendments, the Minister admitted that the purpose of the Bill was not conservation—as has been said in the past, and as Earl Howe said in the other place last week—but a way of reaching Britain's MAGP targets. We have already gone into that this evening.
      We do not believe that an unreasonable limitation on people's ability to prosecute their livelihood is the proper way forward. A far better and more effective way forward is to reduce fishing capacity through a decommissioning scheme. This important amendment would oblige the Government to do that, rather than saying that they will do some decommissioning with the effort limitation string attached. We should be approaching the problem the other way round and putting decommissioning first.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: The amendment goes to the nub of the argument. If we had had a proper decommissioning

      963
      scheme three, four or five years ago, we would not now be having to pass the Bill. No other country in Europe has the limitation on days at sea that the Government seek to impose. Other countries are all much closer to their MAGP targets than we are. They are in that position because they have had decommissioning schemes that have been so effective in some cases—in the French case, for example—that they have been able to start building new vessels to improve the efficiency of their fleets.
      If we had a decommissioning scheme, we would not need the Bill. Instead of enforcing on the industry the consequences of their folly after their slowness in introducing a scheme, the Government should introduce something much more substantial than the proposed £25 million scheme.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made great play about the Labour party's proposal without telling us what the Liberal party was proposing in terms of a decommissioning scheme. I am sure that he would not want us to outbid the radical, daring nature of the House of Lords which said that the scheme should be four times bigger than the proposal and described it as too little too late.
      The decommissioning scheme needs to be at least four times as big as the present scheme. If the Government hope to achieve the rundown in effort estimated in their latest press release, they will be sadly disappointed with a scheme as mean as this. The scheme will have to be substantially increased. We will then need less of a limitation on the number of days that vessels can put to sea.
      Mr. Salmond: I make no apologies for detaining the House on these matters. Indeed, I believe that the House should be detained on matters of such importance.
      I fully endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The amendment is not just right in principle; it is right technically. It hits the nail right on the head in respect of decommissioning.
      I do not need to rehearse the arguments that have already been made about decommissioning, but there are some points of considerable note. First, after some agonising, the Government decided last week to accept the amendment made in the other place that due consideration would have to be given to a decommissioning scheme. Presumably when the other place passed the amendment which the Government opposed there, their Lordships must have thought that something important was at stake. There was an argument, the Government opposed it, and the amendment was carried. It must have been felt that something significant was being debated and that something important was at stake in respect of the amendment.
      When I was interviewed about the Government's decision not to oppose the Lords amendment, I naturally assumed that that could constitute a victory in the legislation, but the Ministry immediately issued a briefing to the effect that nothing had really changed. Due consideration could be given to decommissioning, but that would not matter because after it had been duly considered, everthing would be just as before.
      One reason why the fishing industry has been so antagonised by the Minister's performance that even Conservative members of Grampian regional council are calling for his dismissal is the attitude that it does not matter what arguments are deployed or what principles are carried, everything can sail on regardless.
      964
      There is a view in the fishing industry at the moment that the Minister is making such a cod of fishing policy because he wants everything to collapse in ruins so that his pet scheme of individual transferable quotas can take sway and rescue the industry. The Minister must explain why the Lords amendment is not being treated seriously. Is it really the case, as the Ministry briefing stated, that due consideration will be given and then the whole idea will be dismissed?
      The principle of subsidiarity is contained in the review of the common fisheries policy and the Government are anxious to endorse that principle at the Edinburgh summit later this week. We must consider how that principle applies to decommissioning. It is well known, and was officially admitted in Standing Committee a few weeks ago, that for several years there was a serious difference of opinion between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland was in favour of a decommissioning scheme on its own merits to reduce capacity so as to meet the problem of over-capacity in the industry. That argument was blocked by the Minister of State and his superior at the Ministry. There was a collision and, after wasted years when the money for restructuring went to every other Community fleet in Europe, we have this inadequate scheme which is contingent on the passage of an unacceptable piece of legislation. Will the Government examine the principle of subsidiarity, relative to a decommissioning scheme, and allow the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to introduce what I understand it has wanted to introduce for a number of years—a proper and adequately funded decommissioning scheme to be considered on its merits, not made contingent as part of an unacceptable Bill?
      Mr. John McFall: I wish to speak to amendments (b) and (c) tabled by my hon. Friends about the implementation of an effective decommissioning scheme. We consider those amendments to be extremely important.
      When the matter was discussed in another place on 24 November, many points were made by noble Lords and by Earl Howe. Since then, it has been said that the Government's interpretation of the matter has been nothing but cynical. I have read the debate which took place on 24 November. Earl Howe said:
      "The nub of the matter is that noble Lords want a larger decommissioning scheme, paid for by the taxpayer. We simply do not have the funds for a larger scheme and there is no prospect whatever of our getting them…The £25 million that was set aside for a decommissioning scheme has been safeguarded".—[Official Report, House of Lords,24 November 1992; Vol. 540, c. 930.]
      In this House on 23 November, the Secretary of State for National Heritage said that he was committed to providing £60 million for Windsor Castle. The Friday before, the Government had no idea what would happen, but three days later they came up with £60 million. Is it not the case that the many thousands of jobs in the fishing communities which are threatened could be treated with the same equality by the Government? By not proposing any action, the Government are simply reinforcing the cynical interpretation that people have put on the matter.
      There is a strength of feeling on the matter of decommissioning, not only among noble Lords in another

      965
      place. That feeling is shown by the marches and the rallies by fishermen which have taken place in Scotland, whether in Aberdeen or in Edinburgh this Friday. Undoubtedly, there will be a strong rally by the fishermen. As hon. Members have made clear today, there is a depth of feeling and antagonism in the fishing community against the Government.
      Today, we still have the siege at Lochinver, where 20 Scottish fishing boats have maintained a blockade against a French trawler. The French agent in Lochinver said that he has sympathy with the Scottish fishermen because what is happening now to many of his friends could happen to him and his colleagues next year. The matter is a political comment and a strategy is required to do something about it.
      Mention has been made of the Lords debate. On 24 November, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy made the point that in the context of the problem which the amendment seeks to address the £25 million was inadequate. The problem is that the £25 milliion is not enough. She said:
      "A scheme so minuscule that it will reduce the capacity of the fishing fleet only by up to 5 per cent. will, as I see it, be nothing but a waste of money. Therefore, it really is imperative that, if £25 million-worth of taxpayers' money is not to be wasted, a rather more extensive scheme is introduced."—[Official Report, House of Lords,24 November 1992; Vol. 540, c. 923.]
      Lord Gallacher said:
      "It is the inadequacy of that sum of money in the context of the problem which the amendment seeks to address."
      He said that it was the nub of the problem.
      We have said that the Government should consult with the various fishing bodies and representatives. We have received many letters from people in the fishing communities about the matter. Fishing representatives are seething at the Government's lack of action. The Government should liaise with the different fishing bodies so that some common sense can get through. The depth of feeling and the magnitude of the problem which the bodies face comes home to them. I received a letter even today just before the debate from a fishing family in Eyemouth.It said:
      "The Government are taking away a fisherman's basic right to go to sea and earn an honest living. It is also a unilateral Bill which will unfairly discriminate against UK fishermen."
      It said that the Bill was fundamentally flawed and had the potential to devastate the industry and fishing families.
      12 midnight
      A leader in The Scotsman today said:
      "All that the Government are doing is paving the road to hell."
      It said that the fishermen and the fish processors should get together with the Government, as our amendment suggests, to work out some plan. The fishermen and fish processors have a responsibility. In our discussions they have said that they will accept a scheme. They realise that there are problems ahead, but the Government should listen and talk to them. If the Government are not cynical in their approach, they should take the words of Earl Howe on 24 November seriously into consideration. They make interesting reading. He said in response to Lord Gallagher that he could not accept the amendment. He realised that it was an innocuous form of words. He continued:
      966
      "The form of words may be innocuous, but the import of the amendment, as we have debated it, is not. I would not wish it to be said that the Government had accepted an amendment other than in good faith."—[Official Report, House of Lords,24 November 1992; Vol. 540, c. 931–32.]
      If Earl Howe could say that he did not want to accept an amendment other than in good faith, is it not incumbent on the Government to show that they have good faith and therefore to accept the import of the amendment and do something about the problem in the fishing industry, namely, the need for a more imaginative and more expansive decommissioning scheme?
      Mr. Curry: I am flattered to be accused of so many conspiracies simultaneously. That was the reason why I was smiling at the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Let us put the matter right. The amendment which Lord Radnor moved in the Lords, to which Earl Howe objected, would have obliged us to consider decommissioning every time an individual licence was issued or any change was made to a licence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is precisely what the amendment did. We therefore consulted Lord Radnor. We gave him some assistance and he tabled an amendment on Third Reading which effectively restored the amendment to what he had originally wanted. That is the amendment which the Government were subsequently able to accept. That explains the chain of events.
      The amendments tabled by the Opposition seek to divorce decommissioning and effort control. As I have said to the House repeatedly, they are linked and they must remain linked. Also, the Opposition seek to make us spend a great deal more money on decommissioning. The £25 million was negotiated not without some difficulty. I see one of the Treasury team on the Front Bench and I have no doubt that he will nod in agreement when I say that I cannot promise to come back with more money for decommissioning schemes. I am not prepared to promise from the Dispatch Box what I cannot deliver.
      We are consulting the industry on decommissioning. It was part of the consultation document. There are important decisions to be made, which we wish to take with industry. The MAGP targets are not invented out of thin air or for amusement. They are conservation targets. They are set to address the problems of effort and capacity in the European Community fleet. Therefore, I am unable to accept the amendments and I commend the Lords amendment.
      Question put:That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 168.

      Division No. 101]

      [12.3 am

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Alton, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Dixon, Don

      Berth, Rt Hon A. J.

      Etherington, Bill

      Benton, Joe

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cann, Jamie

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Connarty, Michael

      Hall, Mike

      Cryer, Bob

      Hanson, David

      967

      Heppell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Raynsford, Nick

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rooney, Terry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Salmond, Alex

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McCrea, Rev William

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McFall, John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Trimble, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Turner, Dennis

      McMaster, Gordon

      Tyler, Paul

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wallace, James

      McWilliam, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Mahon, Alice

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Meale, Alan

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Nigel Jones.

      Michael, Alun

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Alexander, Richard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Freeman, Roger

      Amess, David

      French, Douglas

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Gale, Roger

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Gallie, Phil

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Baldry, Tony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bates, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hague, William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hawksley, Warren

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hayes, Jerry

      Brazier, Julian

      Heald, Oliver

      Bright, Graham

      Hendry, Charles

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Horam, John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

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

      Burns, Simon

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Jack, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Clappison, James

      Key, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Knapman, Roger

      Colvin, Michael

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Congdon, David

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knox, David

      Cran, James

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Day, Stephen

      Legg, Barry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Leigh, Edward

      Dover, Den

      Lidington, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Lightbown, David

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Elletson, Harold

      MacKay, Andrew

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Maclean, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Faber, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Fabricant, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      968

      Merchant, Piers

      Spring, Richard

      Mills, Iain

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stanley. Rt Hon Sir John

      Moate, Roger

      Steen, Anthony

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stephen, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sykes, John

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thomason, Roy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Redwood, John

      Trend, Michael

      Richards, Rod

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Riddick, Graham

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waller, Gary

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Sackville, Tom

      Willetts, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Sims, Roger

      Wolfson, Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wood, Timothy

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Yeo, Tim

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (5).
      Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would be unfortunate if Lords amendment No. 10, which forms part of this group, did not detain the House for a moment or two because it represents a substantial trenching on the law of evidence in Scotland.
      I am gratified to see that the Minister responsible for legal affairs in Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), has now joined others of the Government Front-Bench team. I hope that he can answer several questions that arise from the terms of the amendment. Hon. Members are not happy that the issue should be raised at this time but, as we are frequently told, this is a unitary Parliament and it is a necessary consequence of a unitary Parliament that, even at this late hour, matters with substantial consequences for the Scottish law of evidence should detain the House for a moment. I hope that the Minister's departure is not the consequence of a constitutional crisis, but we shall doubtless hear of that later in the debate.
      In Lords amendment No. 10, subclause (2) refers to
      "proceedings in Scotland for an offence under section 4 or 4A"
      and provides for evidence to the effect that any document that fulfils the conditions set out in the provisions
      "shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness".

      969
      That means that when a person acting with authority takes possession of anything that constitutes a document, that object may be introduced in evidence in criminal proceedings without the person who took it having to go to court and explain the circumstances in which it was taken. That may be a significant alteration in the ordinary provisions of the Scottish legal system, but the matter goes a little further. Having been taken possession of in that way, the fact that the document is put in evidence entitles it to be regarded as being
      "sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein or appearing therefrom".
      Thus the document as defined is taken into the possession of a person with authority to do so. It is handed to the procurator fiscal and, as soon as the proceedings are commenced—doubtless in the sheriff court—the document becomes sufficient evidence of the matters contained in it.
      Those statutory provisions take no account of the possibility that the document may have passed through a series of hands before it reaches the sheriff court and the criminal proceedings, nor do they take account of the fact that it may be subject to alteration during that course of events. The statutory proceedings give no apparent opportunity to challenge either the accuracy of the document or whether the search during which it was taken was legal. Moreover, there is no opportunity to challenge the document's authenticity.
      That means that, under the statutory provisions, a substantial innovation is being made in the law of evidence in Scottish law. It seems that something as radical and far-reaching as that—as far as I am aware it is not replicated in any other statute applying to the law in Scotland—should be explained to the House.
      The law of Scotland may not be the most pressing political consideration for hon. Members, but for those who represent Scottish constituencies—and fishermen who may be subject to criminal proceedings under the Bill—it is only right and proper that the Government should explain to the House why they feel it necessary to take to themselves powers which are justifiably described as draconian and which march uneasily with the tradition of the Scottish criminal law, particularly that part of it that requires corroboration in criminal offences. On the face of them, the provisions constitute a substantial attack on the principle of corroboration. If that is the Government's intention, surely the House should be told what reasons justify them doing so.
      Mr. Salmond: I shall follow the excellent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). There is a suggestion that the Government are starting to play fast and loose with Scots law in relation to the implementation of fisheries policy. What notice have the Minister and his Ministry taken of the recent judgements in Banff sheriff court, which affect the implementation of fisheries policy? Perhaps he will reply to that specific question.
      Mr. Curry: The answer to the latter part of the question raised is that the amendment dealt precisely with the Banff sheriff court case.
      970
      I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will accept that I am not a lawyer, still less a Scottish advocate. I shall do my best and arrange for the reply to be supplemented.
      The skippers are already under a legal obligation to complete the documents accurately. The provision does not prevent a challenge to the documents, but in the absence of any such challenge, the documents provides sufficient evidence of the information that they contain. Under the Bill, either the defence or the Crown can challenge any document. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman and will be perfectly willing to supplement my answer with more detailed expert legal information.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Treasury team might have anticipated that such a fundamental issue was likely to be raised in the debate. I accept that the Minister is not a Scottish advocate, as he properly said—no doubt we could make arrangements to receive him into that august freemasonry of men and women—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or even fraternity. I have not been entirely satisfied with his reply. However, my purpose has been served by airing the matter in the House. I look forward with eager anticipation to the more detailed response to my questions which the Minister is to send me in the next few days.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    After Clause 5
    Lords amendment: No. 13, insert the following new clause—
    After Clause 5
      Parliamentary disqualification
      —(1) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—

      "The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal".
      (2) The same entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.")
      Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. McFall: I have three questions for the Minister about the setting up of the fisheries tribunal. First, how will the appeal system work? We have received representations on that point.
      Secondly, will there be financial compensation for loss of earnings for fishermen making successful appeals? Thirdly, will fishermen be allowed to bring legal representatives to the tribunal to speak on their behalf? [Interruption.]The Minister says that he is flagging. I am a short head behind him in that respect. The sooner he answers these question, the better—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a little confused. The amendment is about parliamentary disqualification and the sea fish licence tribunal, not about its workings.
      Mr. Curry: By putting the hon. Gentleman out of his misery, I may be able to put myself out of mine. There will be an independent chairman of the tribunal. I have already said that there will be several tribunals. They will be peripatetic, travelling to the major fishing ports.

      971
      The costs will not be paid. They are never paid for tribunals of this sort. Fishermen will certainly be able to bring legal counsel with them.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Prisoners (Access by Journalists)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. MacKay.]
  12.28 am
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your presence. Through you, Sir, I thank Madam Speaker for granting me the Adjournment debate. I thank the Minister for being here to reply. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for being in his place to listen to the debate.
  I shall speak about Mr. and Mrs. Watson, and especially their late daughter, Diane, who was one of my constituents. Before I turn to the main theme of the debate, I should tell the House that a further tragedy has befallen Mr. and Mrs. Watson. On Saturday of last week, their only remaining child, Alan, died in tragic circumstances. I was extremely pleased when Madam Speaker granted me this debate, and I had no idea that such a tragedy would take place. When I visited the distraught Mr. and Mrs. Watson on Sunday night, they insisted that I should go ahead with the debate. My initial thought was that it would be better to cancel it.
  I have initiated the debate because of the work of irresponsible journalists, namely Mr. Jack McLean of The Glasgow Herald and Miss Meg Henderson of Marie Claire. The debate is about a pupil of Whitehill secondary school, Diane Watson. In April 1991, Diane was only 16 years of age when she was attacked by a fellow pupil by the name of Glover. The other girl thought that Diane had something to do with her boy friend. She was so jealous that she took a kitchen knife from her home and stabbed Diane in the school playground. As the family home was just round the corner, the other pupils carried Diane to her mother's tenement flat, where she died in her mother's arms.
  Diane was a good girl. She studied hard, she was liked and she was extremely popular in school. There is now a memorial to Diane in the form of the Diane Watson prize. It is given to any child in the school each week who is best at doing work in the community. Diane was well known as a good worker in the community. She worked on Saturdays and used the money from her job to try to help with the family income. During her school career, she undertook training at a local hospital. There is a reference in her mother's possession that gives praise to Diane.
  No one could ask for a better daughter, but it seems to me and the family that the press have an obsession every now and again to write about a love triangle and about how two teenagers were arguing over a boy, as a result of which a terrible tragedy ensued. That is not true. I have seen a letter from the boy concerned in which he states that Diane had nothing to do with him. He makes it clear that Diane had no relationship with him. Yet the media, with the honourable exception of the Glasgow Evening Times,have tried to discredit and slur Diane's memory.
  Many hon. Members are parents. I am a father, and I would be hurt if anyone said anything about my daughter, who is alive and well. How must the Watsons feel whenever a newspaper journalist starts making remarks about the memory of a wonderful daughter? But Mr. Jack McLean of The Glasgow Herald goes further. I shall read

  973
  out some of the things that he has been writing, which I can describe only as absolute rubbish. One of his articles reads:
  "Barbara Glover was from Cranhill, not a salubrious district of the city of Glasgow. She was a bit rougher than lots of the other girls at the school which her parents had selected for her, under the rule which says you can send your child to whatever school you wish. Her victim came from a background which was rather upper working class. For years this class element determined that young Barbara was something of an object of the kind of snobbish disdain that occurs within working classes. Diane had the smart white socks of the daughter of the labour aristocracy. Barbara did not."
  The Labour aristocracy, about which that fool of a journalist spoke, was Mr. Watson—a plumber who had been made redundant. At the time of his daughter's death he was able to obtain only casual work one or two days a week.
  I wrote to Mr. McLean's editor. I received a reply from Mr. McLean, who claimed to have interviewed teachers and the family doctors of both families. I have a letter from Dr. Susan Joyce, the family's general practitioner. She says that at no stage did she ever give an interview to Mr. McLean. It would have been unethical to do so.
  The headmaster went a step further. He asked all teachers voluntarily to sign a memo saying whether they did or did not speak to Mr. McLean. Every teacher at the school at the time of the tragic incident signed that memo saying that he or she had not spoken to Mr. McLean.
  I am here tonight because the only thing that I can do for the Watson family is to ask the question—why would a so-called responsible journalist print those lies and hurt a family who wanted nothing to do with the press, but only to be allowed to get on with their lives?
  The Marie Claire article by Meg Henderson is even worse. In an article a few months ago called "British children serving life sentences", she said that at the trial it was revealed that Diane had set out to bully and humiliate the girl Glover, that Diane had pulled off her tee-shirt and laughed at her, and that only a tiny nick of the knife had caused Diane's liver to bleed. That is not true. The pathologist had stated that there were punctures in the poor child's heart, lung and liver.
  The question is, why would a journalist use the word "revealed" when in fact the girl Glover had alleged that Diane was a bully? It is understandable that Glover was trying to get herself off the hook. She was in deep trouble and on trial for murder, so she said that Diane was a bully. No other witness said that Diane was a bully. Why did not that journalist use the word "alleged" rather than "revealed"? The magazine article was clearly devised to mislead its readers. The girl Glover had a first-class Queen's counsel, but the jury rejected her case. A subsequent appeal did the same.
  The worst point about the article is that it gave the clear impression that Miss Henderson, the journalist, carried out an interview in the enclosed facility at Kerelaw used for young criminals. Anyone reading it would certainly gain the impression that there was such an interview. I think that, when the Minister replies, he will say that no interview took place with that child. No permission was given for an interview. Miss Henderson was near that
  974
  facility only as part of a Channel 4 team. She approached the girl Glover, who refused to take part in the Channel 4 interview.
  I shall read the article to show the sort of things that appear in it. It states.
  "What's the worst thing about being in here?"
  The reply was:
  "Where do you start? Being locked up, never being able to decide what you do or when you do it, never being able to get away from the same people all the time. Being separated from my family, missing everything, everybody. We're allowed visits any time—there are no restrictions. My parents have moved house to be nearer the unit and they visit almost every day and my older sister, aunts and uncles and cousins come regularly too. We talk, play games and watch TV together. I get lots of presents".
  Anyone reading that two-page article would say that the journalist must have spoken to the girl in the unit. The girl did not speak to her, and the Scottish Office supports that. The director of social work of Strathclyde region, which runs the unit on behalf of the Scottish Office, said that the place is so closely supervised that no interview could have taken place without the knowledge of the staff.
  I think that I have said enough. All I can add, as a parent, is that I would find it hurtful if a journalist wrote such an article about my daughter. Even the parents of Barbara Glover must be worried about a journalist claiming that an interview took place when it did not. It is insensitive to do these things, particularly when we are dealing with young people and a family who have lost two children within 18 months. I ask those journalists, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: please leave Margaret and Jim Watson alone. I hope and pray that they will recover from their terrible bereavements. I ask the irresponsible individuals in the media to leave the family alone with the memory of two lovely children.
  12.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I rise with a heavy heart to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) in this Adjournment debate. His remarks carried considerable weight, and he advanced a strong case.
  The freedom of the press is one of the most cherished freedoms of this country. When Minister with responsibilities for home affairs, I advocated opening up Scottish prisons to public scrutiny. Public discussion on penal matters has been better informed as a result, but the freedom of the press must be exercised responsibly, especially on penal matters.
  The issues are highly emotive. The rights of those convicted and sentenced by the courts must be respected and upheld, but journalists have a responsibility to the wider public, including victims and their families. Those families are caught up in events beyond their control and unwillingly become the target of considerable publicity. It is the role of the responsible journalist to ensure that such publicity is not unnecessarily distressing to innocent parties.
  Nothing is more tragic than the death of a child. Mr. and Mrs. Watson lost their daughter as a result of a crime of violence and have now lost another child. I should like to express the deepest sympathy for them. I know that that sympathy is shared by every hon. Member in the House tonight.

  975
  A young girl was convicted of Diane Watson's murder. She is now detained without limit of time in the secure unit of a residential care establishment. The situation of young people detained without limit of time has attracted much media attention in the past year. Journalists of course have every right to campaign on the issue and to bring it to the public's attention. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is here tonight, and the former hon. Member for Dunfermline, West raised the issue with me in the previous Parliament, and I responded positively.
  In January, I announced changes in the conditions under which section 205 detainees are held. In particular, I stated that those detainees would be allowed to enjoy escorted recreational outings, and that their cases would be reviewed at an earlier stage than those of comparable adults in order to set a first formal review date as early as possible in sentence. One case has already received that accelerated treatment. The initiatives were welcomed.
  Against the background of media interest in these children, we also decided to issue formal guidance on how requests for access to such children for interview or photography should be handled. We have written to social work departments and managers of residential schools clarifying our policy on this matter.
  We have made it clear that all bids for media access to detainees must be referred to the Scottish Office information directorate, unless vetoed first by the school managers or the social work department. The decision whether access to a particular detainee should be allowed would be taken at ministerial level. In considering such a bid, we would have in mind the interests of the victim's family, the possible effect on the public and the interests of the detainee him or herself.
  We have made it clear in our guidance that we (10 not think that it would ever be in the interests of a child under 16 to be identified in a media interview. As for those aged 16 or over, if there was no objection in principle to the media bid, we would expect the managers of the school to counsel the detainee carefully about the implications of agreeing to it, and we would expect written consent to be obtained both from the detainee and from his or her parent or guardian.
  The hon. Member for Springburn has just drawn attention to a particular article which has, perhaps inadvertently, caused considerable distress to the victim's family. I refer of course to the article by Meg Henderson, highlighted by the hon. Member, which appeared in the magazine Marie Claire last August.
  I now come to the difficult question of the degree of access, if any, which Miss Henderson had to the female detainee in question. I understand that Miss Henderson was engaged as a freelance researcher by Channel 4 in connection with a documentary about children detained without limit of time. In this connection she visited both Kerelaw and Kenmure St. Mary's Schools around November 1991. This was before the issue of our formal guidance on media access, but the principles of that guidance were in operation, on an informal basis. I am told by the management of Kerelaw that there was no verbal contact between Miss Henderson and the detainee other than an offer to be seen on camera. That was declined.
  It is therefore my understanding that no interview with the girl took place. It can be of no benefit to this detainee to suggest, as the article implies, that she herself minimises
  976
  the seriousness of the crime for which she has been convicted. The Scottish Office certainly attaches no responsibility in this matter to the girl herself. We are aware of the media overtures to her, which she has steadfastly refused, and we have no reason to believe that she acted differently on this occasion.
  This article, using the names "Jean" and "Donna", gave the details of the crime for which the young girl I mentioned earlier was convicted. In the course of her trial, I understand that certain claims were made by the defence about the relationship between the accused and the victim, designed to minimise the guilt attaching to the accused. However, the jury was not persuaded that there was any special defence to the crime of murder or that the charge should be reduced.
  It is difficult to understand why Meg Henderson decided to discuss the details of the crime in her article for Marie Claire Her previous articles in The Guardian and The Scotsman did not give any details. The purpose of doing so in the Marie Claire article may have been to evoke sympathy for the female detainee to whom she refers as "Jean". I submit that it was quite unnecessary and irresponsible. It has already caused great distress to the Watson family. Their daughter is dead and cannot answer allegations which have been made against her.
  The hon. Member for Springburn has also referred to articles by Mr. Jack McLean in The Glasgow Herald. Mr. McLean has referred to the case in more than one article, as an illustration of his own somewhat idiosyncratic ideas on law and order. Mr. McLean is entitled to the free expression of his opinions. However, he might reflect on the impact that his remarks have had on the victim's family. Sadly, his articles have caused distress, and I believe this has been brought to his attention by the hon. Member for Springburn.
  Mr. McLean's articles are not of the same relevance to this debate as Miss Henderson's article, however. Mr. McLean did not claim to have interviewed the detainee. and this debate is about access by journalists to those in custody.
  In addressing the general question of media access to those under sentence of the courts, we have in recent years adopted a policy of increased openness. Each request from a national journalist is treated on its merits, and a decision is taken at the highest level in the Scottish prison service. In addition, prison governors deal locally with requests from local newspapers. Broadly speaking, proposals for interviews which are in the public interest because they seek to inform would be viewed sympathetically. Media approaches which seem to us likely to be exploitative—of prisoners or situations are—refused. We could not, of course, agree to interviews with prisoners whose cases are the subject of any current investigation or public controversy.
  The House will appreciate that we would not wish to control entirely the dialogue between prisoners and the news media. Consistent with the European convention on human rights, we do not censor prisoners' mail. All convicted prisoners also have access to payphones. Prisoners may themselves write to journalists. The use made of the material thereafter will depend on the professionalism of the journalist concerned.
  The establishments in which children sentenced under sections 205 or 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 are placed are not part of the Scottish prison service estate, nor are they managed by the Secretary of

  977
  State. They are managed directly by the local authority social work department, and by certain independent bodies with social work funding.
  Where a person convicted is 16 or over, the normal policy is to detain the person from the outset in a young offenders institution. Where the person convicted is under 16, we take the view that the welfare of the person, as a child, must be kept firmly in view. Although, therefore, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to direct the place and conditions of detention, we locate such children if at all possible in the secure unit of a residential school, where they can live in similar conditions to those detained there for welfare reasons.
  We do not seek to control access by the media to the residential schools. As I have said, they do not belong to the Secretary of State, nor does he manage them. We regard media access to the establishments as such as a matter to be controlled by the social work department and the managers of the schools. I am confident that they exercise their discretion responsibly.
  Media access to the detainees themselves, however, is a different matter. The Secretary of State is responsible for the conditions of their detention, and that includes any question of their availability for interview by the press. I
  978
  have already outlined our policy on such access, which is designed to safeguard the interests of such young people without obstructing legitimate public debate.
  As we are all only too well aware, the media in today's society can wield enormous power and influence. That power and influence can be used responsibly for good ends or it can be used irresponsibly. The media coverage which has been generated on children detained without limit of time has undoubtedly promoted public debate. To that there can be no objection.
  But the campaign will not be furthered by misleading and emotive coverage of particular cases. Questions about the conditions of detention for children sentenced by the courts are entirely separate from questions about the merits of particular convictions or sentences.
  By opening up the latter issue and by repeating unsubstantiated allegations, Miss Henderson has obscured the main issue and added unnecessarily and irresponsibly to the unhappiness of the Watson family. If she takes any interest in the effect of her writings, I hope that she will reflect on that fact.
  I would like to end by reiterating my sympathy for the family and my deep compassion for them in their bereavement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the new initiatives planned by Her Majesty's Government to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. mentioned in the pamphlet "Britain in Europe".

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Maastricht European Council agreed that nuclear non-proliferation was an area where member states might take joint action under the Maastricht treaty. Preparatory work by the Twelve has begun on specific initiatives that might be taken, to be completed by the entry into force of the treaty.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the specific new measures taken by European political co-operation during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council to strengthen nuclear nonproliferation policy of the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  During the United Kingdom presidency, the European non-proliferation working group has met twice. In addition to its general discussions, it has specifically decided, in order to assist the International Atomic Energy Agency in the discharge of its safeguards obligations, that the Community and its member states will provide to the agency, on a voluntary basis, additional information on production inventories and international transfers of nuclear material and on exports of certain relevant equipment and non-nuclear material. The provision of this information will begin next year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to adherence to the restrictions and guidelines set out in the series of International Atomic Energy Agency documents known as INFCI RC/209; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  INFCIRC/209/Rev.1 was published in November 1990 and incorporates amendments made since the original document was released in 1974. The document has no status in international law, but the arrangements it contains are an important contribution to the non-proliferation regime and are fully adhered to by Her Majesty's Government, who insist on full-scope safeguards as a condition for the supply of nuclear materials and equipment listed in the document.

  Albania
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will inform the Albanian Government that arms sales by Britain are conditional on the ending of public executions in that country.
  652
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on 30 November, at column 4, concerning our policy on arms sales to Albania.

  East Timor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the Indonesian Government to allow human rights groups and journalists access to East Timor.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Journalists and non-governmental organisations have been able to visit East Timor. In our regular contacts with the Indonesian Government, we encourage them to facilitate such access.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he uses to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the BBC World Service.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service regularly review the performance and cost-effectiveness of World Service broadcasts in meeting agreed objectives and targets. The main factors are the audibility of broadcasts, the size and profile of their audiences and the impact and influence of programmes.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefits accruing to Britain from the introduction of the BBC World Service Television.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome the success of BBC World Service Television in bringing high-quality British TV news reporting and other programmes to international audiences over an increasing area of the world. Reports from various sources, including our diplomatic missions, indicate that WSTV news and current affairs broadcasts are making a significant contribution to Britain's standing abroad.

  United Nations Forces
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total number of troops currently operating under the auspices of the United Nations, indicating the countries to which they have been sent, the countries that have supplied them, and the Security Council resolutions under which they operate.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The troops currently operating under the auspices of the United Nations, in the various peacekeeping operations, broken down by country of origin and by destination are shown in the tables.

  Country of origin

  Number of troops

  Algeria

  33

  Argentina

  920

  Australia

  606

  Austria

  913

  Bangladesh

  958

  Belgium

  816

  Brazil

  74

  653

  Country of origin

  Number of troops

  Bulgaria

  779

  Cameroon

  14

  Canada

  3,438

  Chile

  109

  China

  488

  Colombia

  12

  Congo

  15

  Czechoslovakia

  533

  Denmark

  1,450

  Ecuador

  3

  Egypt

  427

  Fiji

  735

  Finland

  1,242

  France

  6,408

  Germany

  145

  Ghana

  1,735

  Greece

  7

  Guinea

  1

  Guinea Bissau

  15

  Honduras

  14

  Hungary

  13

  India

  1,387

  Indonesia

  1,763

  Ireland

  808

  Italy

  81

  Japan

  608

  Jordan

  885

  Kenya

  941

  Luxembourg

  40

  Malaysia

  931

  Morocco

  18

  Nepal

  1,693

  Netherlands

  1,858

  New Zealand

  114

  Nigeria

  919

  Norway

  1,096

  Pakistan

  1,618

  Philippines

  127

  Poland

  1,814

  Portugal

  30

  Romania

  6

  Russian Federation

  1,024

  Senegal

  24

  Singapore

  15

  Spain

  883

  Sweden

  691

  Switzerland

  66

  Thailand

  727

  Tunisia

  894

  Turkey

  6

  Ukraine

  396

  United Kingdom

  3,891

  United States of America

  534

  Uruguay

  942

  Venezuela

  58

  654

  Country of origin

  Number of troops

  Yugoslavia

  11

  Zimbabwe

  20

  TOTAL

  48,822

  United Nation Operations

  Number of troops

  Security Council resolutions

  UNTSO (Middle East)

  265

  SCR 50 (1948)

  UNMOGIP (India/Pakistan)

  38

  SCR 47 (1948)

  UNFICYP (Cyprus)

  2,159

  SCR 186 (1964)

  UNDOF (Lebanon)

  1,126

  SCR 350 (1974)

  UNIFIL (Lebanon)

  5,643

  SCR 425 (1978)

  UNAVEM (Angola)

  296

  SCR 696 (1991)

  UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait)

  416

  SCR 689 (1991)

  MINURSO (Western Sahara)

  377

  SCR 690 (1991)

  ONUSAL (El Salvador)

  235

  SCR 693 (1991)

  UNTAC (Cambodia)

  15,621

  SCR 745 (1992)

  UNPROFOR (Croatia)

  14,353

  SCR 763 (1992)

  UNPROFOR (Bosnia)

  7,740

  SCR 776 (1992)

  UNOSOM (Somalia)

  553

  SCR 751 (1992)

  Total

  48,822

  1 According to the latest United Nations figures.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) physically disabled and (b) sensorily disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage they are of the total work force.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth office employs 53 registered disabled persons (RDPs): 27 in the diplomatic wing—0·4 per cent. of its total work force and—26 in the Overseas Development Administration—1·38 per cent. of its total work force. Of the 26 RDPs employed by the ODA, 15 are physically disabled and 11 sensorily disabled. Details of individual's disabilities are not held centrally by the diplomatic wing.

  The FCO holds no statistics on non-registered disabled staff, but it is likely that their numbers exceed those who have chosen to register.

  World Decade for Cultural Development
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution his Department is making to UNESCO World Decade for Cultural Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There are no plans at present to contribute.

  United Nations Observers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries to which the United Nations has sent observers to monitor United Nations resolutions, indicating in each case the number of observers, the period of time for which they are appointed, and the number of observers from each European Community member state.
  655
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of military observers currently deployed with each United Nations peace-keeping operation and their country of origin are shown in the table. The standard length of tour for an individual observer is six months.

  Middle East

  India/Pakistan

  Angola

  Iraq/Kuwait

  Western Sahara

  El Salvador

  Cambodia

  Yugoslavia

  Somalia

  Belgium

  6

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  6

  —

  Denmark

  11

  6

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  France

  17

  —

  —

  15

  29

  —

  47

  6

  —

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  20

  —

  2

  6

  6

  2

  12

  7

  —

  Italy

  8

  6

  —

  5

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  15

  —

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  120

  —

  7

  —

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  —

  15

  13

  —

  37

  8

  —

  Non-EC countries

  188

  24

  263

  195

  163

  105

  470

  199

  50

  TOTAL

  265

  38

  285

  248

  219

  227

  468

  258

  50

  Market-testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The timetable for market-testing our departmental activities listed in CM 2101 has as its target completion of the programme by 30 September 1993. Planning is under way.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply to areas of work being market-tested depends on the circumstances of each case and the legal advice received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's market-testing programme has not reached the stage to enable definitive answers to be given in individual cases.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the export of(a) military equipment and (b) equipment with both a military and civilian application to Azerbaijan.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have not approved licences for the export of any military equipment or equipment with military application to Azerbaijan: we adhere to the embargo called by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) on 28 February 1992 on the supply of weapons to the region of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. We are pressing for a widening of the CSCE embargo to cover military assistance generally.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each date when changes were made to the guidelines covering defence-related exports to(a) Iran and (b) Iraq since 1979.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]:Restrictions on Iran had been in force since the seizure of the American hostages in 1979, and on Iraq since the outbreak of the Iraq/Iran conflict in 1980. Guidelines applying to all deliveries of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were introduced in December 1984 and announced on 29 October 1985. These were as follows:

  (i) We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side.

  (ii) Subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations.

  (iii) We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict.

  (iv) In line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq.

  The development and application of the guidelines in relation to Iraq are within the terms of reference of the Scott inquiry.

  Since 1991, guidelines for deliveries of defence equipment to Iran have been as follows:

  (i) We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side.

  (ii) Subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations.

  (iii) We should not in future approve orders for any equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance Iran's military capability.

  (iv) In line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market-testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The timetable for market-testing in my Department ensures that the whole programme listed in Cm. 2101 will be completed by 30 September 1993. Preparations to execute the programme are well in hand and the first market tests are expected to be completed early in the new year.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply to an individual case depends on the facts of that case. Departments will seek advice of legal advisers about the relevance of TUPE on a case-by-case basis, as has been the case in the past.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Market-testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will be considered on the facts of each individual case, and a number of tests will be applied. For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred. We are currently in the process of looking at the implications of TUPE and its applicability in relation to the areas being market-tested in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and are seeking the advice of our legal advisers about the relevance of TUPE on a case-by-case basis. No decisions have been made to date.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My aim is to have- the market-testing exercises for those areas listed in my Department's programme completed by 30 September 1993. This does not include county court bailiffs, as the timetable for the review of enforcement agents is dependent upon the approach taken following the recent consultation paper.
  658
  Planning of the market-testing exercises is well under way, and initial action is already taking place in most of the areas being market-tested. Significant milestones have been identified in the timetable for each of the areas, examples being that the tender evaluation process for typing services in the Public Trust Office is due in April 1993, and completion of the contract documentation for the pay unit is due by the end of May 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the longest time spent in an adult prison on remand in England and Wales(a) by a 14-year-old, (b) by a 15-year-old and (c) by a 16-year-old in the current year so far and in each of the last five years;

  (2) what is the longest time spent in an adult prison in England and Wales following conviction (a) by a 14-year-old, (b) by a 15-year-old and (c) by a 16-year-old in the current year to date and in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Market-testing
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Our aim is to complete all the planned market tests on the listed activities before 30 September 1993. A detailed timetable has yet to be settled for all areas to be market-tested but market tests have already begun in the following areas:

  Computer IT services

  Statistical services

  Office services

  Education services in prisons

  Management of HMP Manchester

  Warehousing and distribution

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and/or the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) is the legislation by which the Government implemented the acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC. Whether TUPE should apply is dependent on whether the activity constitutes a "Transfer of Undertaking" or merely a change of supplier. Legal advice will be sought on a case-by-case basis as part of the market-testing process.

  President-elect Clinton
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the circumstances surrounding the search in October through Home Office files in(a) the immigration and nationality department and (b) other Home Office departments in

  659
  respect of President-elect Clinton; in response to what requests such a search was made; what is the normal procedure for dealing with such requests; what was the procedure in this case; and when Ministers (i) were informed and (ii) authorised the search.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In response to an inquiry by a journalist from the Evening Standard in October as to whether Mr. Clinton had applied for United Kingdom citizenship, the Home Office press office said that it was unable to discuss individual cases.

  The press office then made inquiries of the nationality division to establish for itself the facts of the case. These revealed that there was no file in Mr. Clinton's name. The press office subsequently decided to brief newspapers off the record that there was no foundation to the story in order to bring ill-informed speculation about Mr. Clinton to an end.

  No Minister was involved in any way or at any stage in the handling of the press inquiry. I have already

  Population of Persons Detained under the Immigration Act 1971 in Prison Service Establishments in England and Wales by Length of Detention1

  Length of Detention1

  One day to one month

  Over one month to two months

  Over two months to three months

  Over three months to six months

  Over six months

  Total detainees

  30 Septemper 1991

  41

  25

  11

  47

  70

  194

  31 December 1991

  56

  28

  17

  30

  79

  210

  31 March 1992

  68

  31

  15

  38

  83

  235

  30 June 1992

  63

  53

  32

  51

  61

  260

  1 Time which had been served by the relevant date.

  Population of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 in prison service establishments in England and Wales by establishment

  Establishment

  Number

  September 1991

  December 1991

  March 1992

  June 1992

  Remand centres

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Glen Parva

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Feltham

  1

  2

  1

  —

  Haslar

  99

  98

  99

  100

  Hindley

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Low Newton

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Prisons

  Bedford

  1

  2

  1

  3

  Belmarsh

  1

  6

  4

  3

  Birmingham

  12

  16

  18

  24

  Bristol

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Brixton

  4

  3

  1

  3

  Bullingdon

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Canterbury

  6

  7

  2

  6

  Dorchester

  —

  —

  5

  9

  Durham

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Elmley

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Exeter

  —

  —

  8

  2

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Holloway

  3

  4

  6

  1

  Hull

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  1

  1

  5

  3

  Leicester

  4

  7

  2

  5

  Lewes

  1

  3

  1

  4

  Lincoln

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Norwich

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Pentonville

  46

  45

  55

  70

  Preston

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Pucklechurch

  1

  1

  —

  —

  660
  announced that I shall be reviewing with my chief press officer the procedure for handling such inquiries in the future.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many individuals were held in prison department establishments under Immigration Act powers, in each month from July 1991 to June 1992(a) by prison department establishment and ( b) length of detention;

  (2) how many individuals are currently held in prison department establishments under Immigration Act powers, in total (a) by prison department establishment and (b) by length of detention.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about detainees held in prison service establishments in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 is not readily available by period of detention on a monthly basis. The available information is shown in the tables.
  661

  Establishment

  Number

  September 1991

  December 1991

  March 1992

  June 1992

  Shrewsbury

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Swansea

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Winchester

  2

  5

  3

  4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  2

  2

  14

  6

  All prison service establishments

  194

  210

  235

  260

  Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce proposals to increase the penalties available under the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  It is not our present intention to change the sentencing provisions of the Act. We have, however, made clear our intention to raise the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous or drink driving to 10 years, as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity is available.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) physically disabled and (b) sensorily disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage they are of the total work force.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 1 July 1992, 185 members of staff in the Home Office were registered disabled, representing 0·4 per cent of all staff. No record has been kept of staff's specific disabilities nor of staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Drugs (Convictions)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of convictions against people for (i) dealing in and (ii) possessing hard drugs in(a) Pendle and (b) Lancashire for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested with respect to Lancashire for the misuse of all drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is given in table A2.6 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with (area tables)", 1987–1991, copies of which are in the Library. Information with regard to the Pendle district is not held centrally.

  Persons aged 17 to 21 inclusive receiving probation, community service or Children and Young Persons Act 1969 supervision by the probation service on 31 December 1991 by probation area and type of supervision

  Area

  Type of supervision

  Probation total

  Probation with additional requirements under the Criminal Justice Act 1982

  Community service order

  Children and Young Persons Act 1969

  Avon

  318

  126

  181

  41

  Bedfordshire

  129

  30

  101

  18

  Berkshire

  270

  79

  127

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  160

  26

  116

  13

  Cambridgeshire

  158

  34

  107

  4

  Cheshire

  245

  14

  197

  4

  Cleveland

  307

  56

  175

  36

  Cornwall

  65

  15

  67

  —

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum in Britain have been made from British embassies since January; and how many such applications have been successful.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1992 is not available. For available information for 1991 and earlier years I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 9 November, columns 629–30.

  EC Immigration Ministers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of EC ministers with responsibility for immigration held in London on 30 November.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 7 December 1992,Official Report, column 481, when I reported on the outcome of the Immigration Ministers' meeting on 30 November and Trevi Ministers' meeting on 1 December.

  Convicted Teenagers
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of each probation department, how many 17 to 21-year-olds are on alternative-to-custody programmes run by the probation service and or voluntary organisations following conviction for a criminal offence in each case on the last date for which information is available.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: The available information is shown in the table.
  663

  Area

  Type of supervision

  Probation total

  Probation with additional requirements under the Criminal Justice Act 1982

  Community service order

  Children and Young Persons Act 1969

  Cumbria

  161

  45

  119

  19

  Derbyshire

  172

  21

  145

  13

  Devon

  301

  88

  138

  15

  Dorset

  189

  62

  117

  10

  Durham

  172

  48

  159

  25

  Essex

  383

  78

  209

  12

  Gloucestershire

  171

  58

  95

  20

  Hampshire

  444

  150

  254

  28

  Hereford and Worcester

  189

  25

  110

  15

  Hertfordshire

  220

  36

  130

  10

  Humberside

  378

  75

  215

  5

  Kent

  372

  81

  261

  3

  Lancashire

  594

  168

  484

  74

  Leicestershire

  247

  36

  187

  17

  Lincolnshire

  187

  75

  108

  14

  Greater Manchester

  1,020

  190

  771

  101

  Merseyside

  683

  116

  436

  40

  Norfolk

  161

  29

  103

  12

  Northamptonshire

  195

  51

  54

  1

  Northumbria

  611

  85

  299

  57

  Nottinghamshire

  327

  3

  194

  38

  Oxfordshire

  136

  10

  100

  4

  Shropshire

  117

  24

  86

  7

  Somerset

  188

  76

  68

  13

  Staffordshire

  385

  113

  198

  54

  Suffolk

  133

  23

  117

  13

  Surrey

  199

  58

  87

  9

  East Sussex

  128

  44

  122

  9

  West Sussex

  119

  13

  80

  16

  Warwickshire

  107

  15

  102

  9

  West Midlands

  944

  250

  644

  74

  Wiltshire

  159

  39

  126

  20

  North Yorkshire

  142

  29

  92

  12

  South Yorkshire

  513

  80

  435

  37

  West Yorkshire

  794

  186

  756

  101

  Inner London

  694

  62

  577

  45

  North East London

  281

  21

  202

  35

  South East London

  169

  35

  144

  12

  South West London

  123

  27

  84

  6

  Middlesex

  494

  8

  283

  33

  Dyfed

  104

  23

  51

  11

  Gwent

  110

  38

  122

  23

  North Wales

  89

  14

  157

  3

  Powys

  30

  7

  10

  —

  South of Glamorgan

  193

  58

  91

  35

  Mid Glamorgan

  232

  70

  116

  12

  West Glamorgan

  139

  51

  95

  1

  England and Wales

  15,551

  3,274

  10,604

  1,246

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first became aware of the 1988 amendments to the 1985 Howe guidelines for defence-related exports to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  The development and application of the guidelines will be a matter for the Scott inquiry.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to the Exchequer of his travels within the European Communities to meet his counterparts since 1 July 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost is not yet available.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by date all meetings and telephone conversations he has had with his European Community counterparts during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.
  665
  The Prime Minister
  I have had frequent contacts with my EC colleagues, most recently during a tour of EC capitals to prepare for the Edinburgh European Council.

  Iraq and Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to discuss arms and nuclear exports to Iraq and Iran from European Community countries during the European summit of the European Council.

  The Prime Minister
  We are committed to strengthening nuclear non-proliferation regimes and to controlling arms exports. The United Kingdom presidency has taken forward work on nuclear non-proliferation and on the harmonisation of conventional arms export policies in European political co-operation. We have no plans to discuss EC arms and nuclear exports to Iraq and Iran at the Edinburgh summit.

  Legal Expenses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates, in what circumstances and at what cost, contributions have been made, at public expense, towards the legal expenses of officers of Her Majesty's Government, officers of the House of Commons who are Members of the House, persons working in the private office of Ministers and accounting officers for Departments of state since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 3 December,Official Report, column 307.

WALES

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many secretarial staff were assisting consultants in South Glamorgan health authority in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) the first half of 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the unemployment figures for(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd for men and for women and as a percentage for May 1979 and for the latest date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The earliest month for which data comparable with present coverage are available for local areas is June 1983. The seasonally adjusted series, consistent between 1979 and 1992, is produced only for Wales as a whole. All available unemployment figures can be accessed from the NOMIS database, by House of Commons Library staff.

  Local Government Reorganisation and Education
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations informed his decision in respect of whether to place in the Library the results of his 666
  consultation exercises in the case of (a) local government reorganisation and (b) "Choice and Diversity and the Education Bill".

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responses to the various consultative documents on local government reorganisation were placed in the Library of the House at the request of the local authority associations in Wales and others.

  Our policy on the responses received in respect of the proposals contained in the Education White Paper "Choice and Diversity" was described in my reply of 26 November to the hon. Gentleman at column 794.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he intends to improve the training within the youth training scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs), which are responsible for the planning and delivery of youth training, operate under a performance-based contract. Each TEC has arrangements for quality assurance and has the flexibility to develop programmes to meet local needs.

  Youth training is being made even more effective through the progressive extension of training credits which are designed to increase the motivation of young people, encourage more employers to train and promote an efficient training market.

  Young People (Shotton)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in the Shotton travel-to-work area are not in employment, not on a youth training scheme and not in full-time education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In October 1992 there were 398 unemployed claimants aged between 16 and 18 years inclusive in the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl trave-to-work area. Information on other young people who are out of employment, not on a YT scheme nor in full-time education, is not available.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of when the review of assisted area status will be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 2 December to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) by my hon. Friend the Minister of Trade at columns 260–61.

  Education (Choice and Diversity)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many representations he has received on the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity and the Education Bill"; and how many representations were made from(a) local education authorities, (b) teaching organisations and (c) others;

  (2) if he will list, with names and addresses, those organisations and individuals who submitted representations to him over the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity and the Education Bill".
  667
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have received some 300 representations on the White Paper "Choice and Diversity". A list, setting out the details of 81 of these, has been placed in the Library of the House. The list includes local education authorities and teaching organisations but does not include those governing bodies, headteachers, teachers, parents and members of the public who responded. It would not be appropriate to list such respondents, some of whom may not wish their names to be disclosed.

  The list does not include those organisations which responded to the separate consultations on special educational needs and the proposed transfer of responsibility for the development of Welsh language classroom materials to the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales (Awdurdod Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru).

  Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to improve the delivery of training by Training and enterprise councils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  TECs operate under a performance-based contract with the Department. Each TEC has arrangements for quality assuring the delivery of training by its training providers. Each TEC's performance is reviewed by officials.

  Dolphins
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of state for Wales what representations he has received concerning the welfare of dolphins in the Irish sea and specifically Cardigan bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Forty-eight representations have been received since November 1991 from a number of sources including members of this House, members of the public and conservation bodies. Forty-four were in relation to the issuing of a licence by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to Hamilton Oil to undertake exploratory drilling in Cardigan bay; the other four were in relation to the seismic survey that was carried out in the hay in September of this year by the British Geological Survey.

  Railway Privatisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the privatization of the rail industry in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend last met Sir Bob Reid on 7 September. They discussed a wide range of topics including privatisation.

  Disabled Trainees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are taken by his Department to monitor the effectiveness of policies employed by training and enterprise councils concerning the placement of disabled trainees.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their business plans what steps they 668
  intend to take to ensure that appropriate training is provided for people with disabilities. Each TEC's performance is reviewed by officials.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was allocated as travel allowances to assist disabled trainees to take up training placements by each training and enterprise council in Wales in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is not possible to identify separately the amount for travel allowances for disabled trainees. In negotiating budgets with training and enterprise councils (TECs) the Department takes account of travel costs for all trainees and the TECs are under a "best endeavours" obligation in their contract to provide support costs, including reasonable travelling allowances, for disabled trainees.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the total earnings from tourism in Wales in each year since 1981; and if he will break the figures down according to(a) earnings from United Kingdom staying visits, (b) overseas visitors and (c) day visitors.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 October 1992, columns 132–33]: Unfortunately an incorrect figure was given, the correct answer is as follows: Estimates of expenditure by overnight visitors to Wales are given in the following table. Estimates of expenditure by day visitors are available only for the financial year ending on 31 March 1989 when an estimated £229 million was spent in Wales. (Source: The Leisure Day Visits survey 1988–89, conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on behalf of the Department of Employment and the British Tourist Authority.)

  Expenditure by overnight visitors to Wales1

  £ million

  Year

  United Kingdom visitors2

  Overseas visitors

  1981

  n.a.

  50

  1982

  n.a.

  55

  1983

  n.a.

  85

  1984

  n.a.

  90

  1985

  n.a.

  95

  1986

  n.a.

  100

  1987

  n.a.

  120

  1988

  n.a.

  100

  1989

  985

  120

  1990

  900

  130

  1991

  900

  130

  Sources: United Kingdom Travel Survey, International Passenger Survey.

  1These estimates, derived from: sample surveys and thus subject to potential random sampling errors, have been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2Since 1989 information has been obtained from the United Kingdom Tourism Survey (UKTS), sponsored jointly by the statutory tourist hoards from: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the results of this latter survey and those of earlier surveys.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private residential and nursing homes have been repossessed in Wales in each of the last three years; and how many beds have been lost each year through such repossessions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated to the urban programme for Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Urban programme allocations for Wales for the last five years were:

  £ million

  1988–89

  24·6

  1989–90

  27·6

  1990–91

  32·6

  1991–92

  40·6

  1992–93

  31·4

  Illegal Parking
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will convene a conference of police, county councillors, borough, district, community and town councillors to discuss ways of alleviating the ill effects of illegal itinerant encampments in the county of Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. This would be a matter for Clwyd county council to consider.

  Hearing-impaired Children
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he intends to ensure that the special needs of children with hearing impairment but who have not been statemented are protected in the future(a) in local education authority schools and (b) in opted-out schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Governors of both local education authority and grant-maintained schools have a responsibility to use their best endeavours to secure that, if any pupil has special educational needs, provision is made to meet those needs. The national curriculum applies to all children, including those with hearing impairments, and schools' special needs provision will be subject to inspection under the new system of school inspections by registered inspectors.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market tested b) 30 September 1993, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 670
  1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply to an individual case depends upon the facts of that case; and there are a number of tests to be applied. For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The timetable for market testing my departmental activities listed in Cmnd 2101 indicates my aim that the whole programme is complete by 30 September 1993.

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will start paying regional enterprise grants to companies based in intermediate areas in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 11 May the Minister for Industry announced the extension of the coverage of regional enterprise grants. In Wales, companies in intermediate areas have accordingly been invited to apply for grants. Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a spring supplementary estimate 1992–93 for the agricultural support services, fishing, regional and industrial development, Wales vote (class XVI, vote 2). Pending that approval, and to ensure that projects can go ahead without delay, urgent expenditure estimated at £150,000 will be met by repayable advances for the contingencies fund.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments have already been made out of the planned provision for aid to developing countries for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The bulk of multilateral aid spending over the next three years will arise from existing commitments and developments in the EC budget expenditure on aid. Within individual bilateral aid programmes a range of commitments have already been entered into for spending over the next three years. Details of individual commitments could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Tibet
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the People's Republic of China relating to policies on compulsory abortion and sterilisation of women, and birth control policy in Tibet; and what assistance is given to China's health and social services under bilateral aid programmes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We regularly raise with the Chinese authorities our concern about the situation in Tibet and human rights abuses there including allegations of forced abortion. The Chinese authorities deny that forced
  671
  abortion is official policy. Nevertheless there are reports that such practices occur in more isolated areas. Through the United Nations population fund (UNFPA) representations have been made to Chinese authorities about our concerns on these matters.

  Our bilateral aid programme is focused on the environment, energy efficiency, economic reform and management, and public administration. We are not currently involved in either of the health or social services sectors.

  Overseas Aid (Gross National Product)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was dedicated by the United Kingdom in overseas aid in the periods October 1990 to October 1991 and October 1991 to October 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Aid as a proportion of gross national product is calculated by calendar year. In 1990 the United Kingdom spent 0·27 per cent. of our GNP on overseas aid and in 1991 0·32 per cent.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which regions of Somalia the United Nations Secretary-General has proposed the use of force to ensure delivery of emergency food aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: United Nations Security Council resolution 794 permits the use of all necessary measures by member states throughout Somalia. In practice, we expect use of force only to be necessary in those regions in the south and centre of the country, where the delivery of emergency food aid has been seriously impeded by looting and violence.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reaction Her Majesty's Government have made to the proposal of the United Nations Secretary-General for the use of force to deliver emergency food aid to Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Increased security is the key to delivering relief to the starving in Somalia. We have therefore accepted the United Nations Secretary-General's judgment that a larger United Nations military operation by a coalition of member states is necessary to secure the delivery of emergency food aid. We co-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 794 of 3 December.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the United Nations Secretary-General to draw up proposals to enable leaders in the north of Somalia, Republic of Somaliland, to establish an effective system of administration and to consolidate the relative peace in that region.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The strategy proposed by the United Nations Secretary-General in July 1992 by the United Nations Security Council, envisages the re-building of institutions and the consolidation of peace throughout Somalia. The United Nations proposes to pursue those objectives on a regional basis. The north-west is one of the regions identified by the Secretary-General. We hope that the implementation of Security Council resolution 794, adopted on 3 December,
  672
  will create the conditions in Somalia, not only for improved humanitarian relief operations but for effective implementation of the United Nations's plan for rehabilitation and institution rebuilding throughout the country.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Nations humanitarian aid convoys have travelled to their destinations in Bosnia-Herzegovina from(a) Belgrade, (b) Split and (c) by air from other points of departure.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Exact figures for how many convoys have travelled to their destinations in Bosnia-Herzegovina from various points of departure are not available from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at present. However, there are 79 UNHCR trucks based at Belgrade with a capacity of 1,140 tonnes and 10 at Split with a capacity of 70 tonnes. A further 228 trucks with 2,343 tonnes capacity are based elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. As of December, a total of 1,840 relief flights had been made, delivering 21,106 tonnes of humanitarian relief; all of these were to Sarajevo.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what estimate he has made of the total job loss throughout the economy consequent upon the pit closure programme he announced last week;

  (2) what is his working assuption of the consequential effects on British Rail manpower and finances of the pit closure programme which he announced last week.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the knock-on effect of the closure of the 31 mines on employment in(a) transport, (b) the engineering industry, including belting etc., (c) other material suppliers, (d) the demand for electric power on base load, (e) the demand for consumer goods and (f) retail distribution; and if he will provide an approximate total for the total knock-on effect, including the second-round effects.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what formula he estimates the number of businesses which close consequent on the closure of a colliery.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set in hand a study to estimate the overall number of job losses in the mining and related industries and in the mining communities likely to arise in the event of all 31 pits being closed, as announced by him in his statement of 13 October.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: The Government's view of the employment consequences of pit closures is set out in the memorandum submitted to the Employment Select Committee of the House on 1 December 1992 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. With the agreement of the Committee, a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Personal Protective Equipment
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's assessment of the likely effect of its regulations arising from the PPE directive on firms employing(a) more than 50 people and (b) fewer than 50 people; and what action his Department proposes in order to minimise the disadvantages to small businesses in particular, arising from the directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Personal Protective Equipment Directive (89/686/EEC) removes technical barriers to trade arising from national regulations by creating a single regulatory regime. All firms in the sector, regardless of size, will be able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new rules. To minimise the difficulties which smaller businesses may face, in preparing for introduction of the provisions of this directive, the Government have decided that a period of 12 months will be allowed under the United Kingdom regulations before it will be necessary for them fully to comply with the new requirements.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received concerning the EC directive on personal protective equipment; how these representations have affected his Department's policy on the directive; and what his Department estimates to be the average cost per employee of those businesses having to comply with the regulations.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department has received many representations from industry and others on the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Directive (89/686/EEC). These views have been taken into account in the drafting of the United Kingdom regulations.

  The Department has not been able to obtain the necessary information to determine compliance costs per employee for businesses affected by this directive, but these should be comparable with the costs of such businesses throughout the EC. United Kingdom businesses will have access to new markets as a result of this directive.

  Package Holidays Directive
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to lay regulations to implement the European Community package holidays directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  Regulations implementing the EC Directive on Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours (90/314/EEC) were laid before Parliament on Monday 23 November. They were withdrawn in order to make a number of amendments to the drafting and re-laid on Tuesday 1 December. They will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

  999 Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the oral statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology of 27 November,Official Report, columns 1163–66, concerning the future of the 999 service, if he will investigate the technical feasibility of running the existing system of operator centres within a competitive system of telephone providers.

  Mr. Leigh
  Oftel has appointed independent consultants to advise on ways in which the current 999 674
  arrangements might be improved in the light of the growing numbers of telecommunications operators. Once their report is complete, all the options will be reviewed by the parties concerned in the light of the consultants' findings. As I have made clear, the Government fully support the director general's commitment to ensuring that the quality of any new arrangements at least maintains, and preferably improves, the current high standard of 999 call handling arrangements.

  Parcelforce and Red Star Parcels
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that management and employees of Parcelforce and Red Star Parcels are in a position to put together bids.

  Mr. Leigh
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade anticipated in his statement to the House on 15 July, he has asked the Post Office Board to make available financial support to help Parcelforce management and employees in putting together a bid for the business, should they wish to do so, in competition with other potential bidders. Red Star Parcels is a division of the British Rail Parcels Group and questions arising from its privatisation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects to invite bids for Parcelforce;

  (2) when he expects the privatisation of Parcelforce to be completed.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government have not yet decided on the method and timing of the privatisation of Parcelforce. I can therefore forecast neither the launch date for the privatisation, nor when it is likely to be completed.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect on employment of the privatisation of Parcelforce.

  Mr. Leigh
  The detailed work set in hand following my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's announcement on 15 July of his intention to privatise Parcelforce will cover all matters relating to the sale.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that, in the event of the privatisation of Parcelforce, the future owner will make pension provisions for the employees which, when taken as a whole, will be no less favourable than those currently provided under the Post Office pension schemes.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: There is extensive experience of protecting the accrued rights of public sector employees on privatisation; the same diligence will apply to the sale of Parcelforce. A potential purchaser's plans for future pension provision will in addition be carefully scrutinised at the time bids are sought.

  Powergen
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take to compel PowerGen to adhere to their previous commitment to retrofit 4,000 megawatts of capacity with flue gas desulphurisation technology; and if he will make a statement.
  675
  Mr. Eggar
  The retrofitting of 2GW of flue gas desulphurisation technology is already under way at PowerGen's Ratcliffe on Soar power station. PowerGen has also applied for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to fit a further 2GW at Ferrybridge C; I am considering this application. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has power to direct Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to require the fitting of FGD in a particular case if he considers it appropriate.

  Manufacturing Plant and Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he has given for new manufacturing plant and development to(a) United Kingdom-owned companies and (b) foreign-based companies for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Complete information has not been recorded in the form and over the period requested. However, since 1979, the following amounts have been paid under regional selective assistance and, from November 1984, the revised regional development grant scheme, to United Kingdom and foreign-owned companies respectively towards projects involving new manufacturing plant in Great Britain:

  £ million

  UK-owned companies

  Foreign-owned companies

  1979–80

  7·6

  16·1

  1980–81

  9·6

  5·1

  1981–82

  11·5

  4·6

  1982–83

  14·7

  10·6

  1983–84

  15·0

  11·1

  1984–85

  18·5

  12·5

  1985–86

  53·1

  17·2

  1986–87

  133·2

  19·6

  1987–88

  154·5

  40·0

  1988–89

  227·1

  58·2

  1989–90

  162·0

  54·0

  1990–91

  116·6

  41·4

  1991–92

  54·6

  61·4

  Notes:

  (1) Payments towards new manufacturing plant under the original Regional Development Grant scheme could only be included at disproportionate cost.

  (2) Excludes payments towards, (i) new manufacturing plant under Section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and (ii) development.

  Computer Games
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to make an investigation into monopolistic behaviour by computer games manufacturers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Investigation of anti-competitive practices or monopolistic behaviour is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. The director general makes references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where he considers it appropriate.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) physically disabled and (b) sensorily disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage they are of the total work force.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 1 July 1992, the latest date for which information is readily available, the Department (including its executive agencies and the former Department of Energy) employed the following number of disabled staff.

  Number of Staff with Disabilities1

  Percentage of Total Workforce

  Registered

  122·5

  1·0

  Non Registered

  56·5

  0·5

  Total

  179·0

  1·5

  1 Full time equivalents.

  Of these, 47·5 staff (0·4 per cent. of the total workforce) were known to have a sensory disability. Separate figures for physical disability are unavailable.

  The above figures cover only staff who have chosen to declare their disability.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market tested by 30 September 1993, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Eggar
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply to an individual case depends on the facts of that case; and there are a number of tests to be applied. For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred. We are seeking the advice of our legal advisers on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is my intention to mount market tests before September 1993 on all my Department's activities listed in Cmnd 2101. I am not publishing a timetable since detailed planning is still underway in some areas.

  Microsoft Corporation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will(a) investigate the proposed supply and charging practices of the Microsoft Corporation for MS-DOS and (b) refer this to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Investigation of allegedly anticompetitive or monopolistic behaviour is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. Allegations of such practices should be referred to his office for consideration.

  Beer
  Mr. Hardy
  Top ask the President of the Board of Trade what account he has taken of the preparedness of the British glass-making industry for the proposed new requirements for beer measurement, in decisions on the timing of the introduction of the requirements.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: The British Glass Manufacturers Confederation was consulted in January 1992. Following consultation the implementation date was set at 1 April 1994 allowing a gradual transition and giving glass manufacturers time to prepare for the new requirement.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he was consulted by Post Office Counters over its planned new reorganisation and job reduction programme as part of his review of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Internal management structure and levels of employment within Post Office Counters are operational matters for the Post Office Board. My Department was fully informed in advance about the proposed re-organisation of Post Office Counters. These operational matters do not form part of our current review of the Post Office.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will make it his policy that support for regional tourist boards will not be cut as a result of the tourism review;

  (2) for what reason grant in aid support for the tourism industry is to be reduced over the next three years.

  Mr. Key
  I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 13 November,Official Report, columns 997–98. I believe that the case is now much less strong for central Government funding of the promotion of tourism in England. The English Tourist Board (ETB) has done a great deal over the years to raise standards, to improve access to information, and to show the industry how their products can be developed and marketed. As the industry matures, and the regional tourist boards develop, it is appropriate for other bodies to carry on many of the ETB's central activities. That is reflected in the allocations of Exchequer grants for tourism over the next three years.

  However, I also believe that central Government support for the regional tourist boards should continue. I believe that this support should be targeted much more closely than at present on areas of need where tourism might be an instrument of economic regeneration. The English Tourist Board is currently working on proposals for support to the regional tourist boards.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for what reason tourism has been excluded from the list of recipients of financial benefits that will be provided by the national lottery.

  Mr. Key
  The White Paper, "A National Lottery Raising Money for Good Causes", stated that proceeds 678
  from the national lottery would be distributed for the arts, sport, heritage and charities. Funds devoted to improving the heritage, arts and sports sectors will also benefit tourism.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to re-establish the post of tourism Minister, with responsibility only for tourism, within his Department.

  Mr. Key
  My Department brings together for the first time a number of inter-related portfolios, all of which are important to tourism. Both my right hon. Friend and I cover the whole range of the Department's activities, including tourism itself. The industry will benefit from having two Ministers, including one at Cabinet level, whose interests are directly relevant to tourism.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment has been made of the effect on the early summer tourist trade if the May day bank holiday were to be removed.

  Mr. Key
  There has been no direct assessment of this kind. However, the English Tourist Board (ETB) takes the view that the May day holiday is too close to the Easter and late spring bank holidays, and generates little extra tourism business. This view is backed by many sections of the tourism industry. The ETB considers that an autumn bank holiday would help to extend the tourist season and thereby promote greater employment opportunities.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department intends that the market-testing of those activities listed in Cmnd 2101 will be complete by 30 September 1993 and planning is well under way. Tenders are currently being invited for the provision of office services in my Department's new headquarters building. Contracts will be in place before the move.

  Tenders are currently being invited for building agent services for the royal parks with the intention that the managing contractor will be appointed by 1 April 1993 or shortly thereafter. The Historic Royal Palaces Agency will present a report to me on the market-testing of gardens maintenance by the end of this year.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department intends to contract out a number of its central services when it moves to its new headquarters. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations are unlikely to apply in this case as none of my Department's staff are currently engaged in providing these services. In relation to other activities due to be market-tested, my Department will seek legal advice on the relevance of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC on a case by case basis.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will announce the television licence fees which will take effect from 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Brooke
  On 14 January 1991, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department announced (Official Report, col. 377–78) that the fee increase for April 1991, which was set at 3 per cent. below the retail price index, would be followed by annual increases at RPI over the subsequent four years. The operation of this formula would, however, be reassessed in 1994.

  Licence fee increases are based on the annual increase in RPI as at the preceding September, in the same way as rises in pensions and other state benefits. Application of this year's September RPI figure of 3·6 per cent. to the current unrounded fees produces new rounded totals of £83 for a colour licence and £27·50 for a monochrome licence. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into force next April will be laid before the House in due course.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations he has received about the workings of the concessionary television licence scheme as it affects Severn house, Worcester; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the consultations on the future structure and funding of the BBC will include an examination of the concessionary television licence scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received representations about the workings of the concessionary television licence scheme as it affects Severn house, Worcester, only from the hon. Member. The concessionary scheme was the subject of long and careful scrutiny before the regulations were revised in 1988. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they have no plans to amend or extend the regulations governing the scheme. The long-term future of the licence fee and the arrangements for paying it are issues to be considered in the debate about the renewal of the BBC's charter.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of revenue to the Treasury from the proposed national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on 7 December 1992 (Official Report, column 456).

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the loss of revenue to the Treasury from the pools industry when the national lottery is introduced.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 7 December 1992 (Official Report, column 455).

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when English Heritage applied for access to inspect and survey rewiring and other works being carried out at Windsor castle; and what response was given on each occasion.
  680
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has regarding applications by English Heritage to survey Windsor castle during the recent installations of new services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answers 27 and 30 November 1992]: English Heritage works closely with the royal household and has carried out several inspections and surveys in the royal palaces over the past few years. English Heritage experts were not generally involved during the rewiring work at Windsor castle because it was judged that it did not involve significant disturbance to the fabric. However, they were notified on a number of occasions in the course of the work of possible disturbance to the historic fabric and were allowed access on all but one occasion.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total cost would be of uprating the level of income support received by people aged 18 to 24 years to the level enjoyed by those of 25 years and over.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated cost of increasing the rate of income support for 18 to 24-year-olds to that payable to those aged 25 and over is £360 million in a full year. This figure includes the consequential increases in housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Note:

  The figure has been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Source:

  Modelled at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels using data drawn from the 1991 Annual Statistical Enquiry and the 1987–88–89 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department is spending on publicity and promotion for the Child Support Agency in 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  The new child support scheme will make a substantial change to both existing law and practice in this area, substituting an administratively-based system for the current courts system. Publicity is being aimed at a wide audience among the public, lawyers and advisers, recognising the major scale of this change. The total publicity budget for 1992–93 is £4,012,000, including TV, radio and press advertisements, leaflets and other information material, distribution of leaflets through a handling house, training presentations to legal and lay advisers, and the launch of the Child Support Agency.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the letter sent to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North dated 30 October by Michael Bichard, chief executive of the Benefits Agency, relating to the resources to be made available for the urgent processing of outstanding disability living allowance from constituents in Stoke-on-Trent, North.

  Mr. Burt
  A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the current real value of the pensioners' Christmas bonus would be had it been upgraded in line with the retail prices index since the bonus introduction in 1972.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 19 October 1992 at column 176.

  Occupational Diseases
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on bladder and lung cancer in relation to aluminium smelting; and if he will make a statement on this and the council's earlier reports on work-related upper limb disorders (Cm 1936) and lung cancer in relation to occupational exposure to silica (Cm 2043).

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid before Parliament the council's report on bladder and lung cancer in relation to aluminium smelting (Cm 2104). We have accepted the council's recommendation that bladder cancer in relation to work in aluminium smelting involving the Soderberg process be added to the list of diseases prescribed for industrial disablement benefit purposes. The council found insufficient evidence to recommend that lung cancer in association with aluminium smelting be prescribed.

  The Government also accept the council's recommendations in Cm 1936 and 2043 that both carpal tunnel syndrome associated with the use of hand-held vibrating tools, and lung cancer where there is accompanying evidence of silicosis in people in a prescribed list of occupations, be added to the list of prescribed diseases.

  Regulations will be laid to implement the above recommendations from spring 1993.

  The Government will be giving further consideration to the council's recommendation that other cases of carpal tunnel syndrome should be considered for benefit on a case by case basis.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The timetable listed in Cm 2101 shows the main activities which the Department aims to market-test by 30 September 1993. We also aim to test printing, microfilming, travel, video production, storage and distribution, and publishing services. Planning is well under way. Each project is setting its own specific timetable for the main milestone stages within the overall programme.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market tested by 30 September 1993, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.
  682
  Miss Widdecombe
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply to an individual case depends on the facts of that case; and there are a number of tests to be applied. For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred. We are seeking the advice of our legal advisers about the relevance of TUPE on a case by case basis.

  Dependency Allowance
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make it possible for a woman of pensionable age to claim a dependancy allowance for a man who is not.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is already possible for a woman aged 60 or over to receive an increase of retirment pension for a husband who is under 65, provided she had entitlement to an increase of invalidity, sickness or unemployment benefit immediately prior to retirement. The Government will be looking at these rules in the context of their consideration of the equalisation of pension age.

  Mrs. Jean Fox
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Hams, dated 22 October, about Mrs. Jean Fox of 6 Mapledene close, Stoke Gabriel, South Devon.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand that Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, replied to my hon. Friend on 1 December 1992.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Officers (Legal Expenses)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, on what dates, in what circumstances and at what cost, contributions have been made from public funds towards the legal expenses of Officers of the House of Commons since 1979.

  Mr. Beith
  None since September 1987. A search of records before that date could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Portrait Restoration
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the estimated cost of restoring the damaged portrait of Lady Thatcher in 1 Parliament street; and when he expects it to be returned to the House.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The damaged portrait of Lady Thatcher has been restored without charge. I am advised that it was rehung in the 1 Parliament street building this morning.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he approved the transfer of 50 tonnes of non-sector area VII hake to the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation; how he consulted the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation; what are the implications for the Northern Ireland fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not normal practice for quota swaps to be approved by Ministers. The Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation was not consulted as it was known that it did not have an allocation from which to offer the 500 tonnes of mackerel required to accommodate the needs of the mackerel handliners in the south west of England in return for hake. While the Northern Ireland industry would have benefited from an additional allocation of hake quota, the swap was approved in the overall interests of the non-sector fishery.

  Newry Bypass
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the current progress towards the completion of the Newry bypass, giving estimated start and completion dates for phases 2 and 3.

  Mr. Atkins
  The detailed design of stage 3 is well advanced. While the start dates will be dependant on the outcome of the current review of the Government's expenditure plans and the completion of the statutory processes, I hope to be in a position to make an early announcement.

  Gamblers Anonymous
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance has been made available by(a) the Department of Health and Social Services and (b) health boards, for Gamblers Anonymous in Northern Ireland; and what further funding arrangements are proposed.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Health and Social Services provided grant aid of £250 to Gamblers Anonymous Belfast in the financial year 1987–88. The Department has no plans to provide further grant aid.
  684
  The Eastern health and social services board has provided grant aid to Gamblers Anonymous Belfast as follows:

  Year

  Amount paid £

  1989–90

  2,113

  1990–91

  10,170

  1991–92

  14,176

  The Eastern board proposes to provide further grant aid of £80,250 in the current financial year.

  The Northern, Southern and Western health and social services boards have not provided financial assistance to Gamblers Anonymous and have no plans to do so.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Mates
  The timetable for market testing the Northern Ireland activities listed in Cmd 2101 ensures that the whole programme will be completed by 30 September 1992. The market testing process is already well underway. The precise timing of the various steps in the process will vary from test to test.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Mates
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply to an individual case depends on the facts of that case; and there are a number of tests to be applied. For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred. Advice will be sought from our legal advisers about the relevance of TUPE on a case by case basis.

HEALTH

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many complementary medical practitioners are now receiving NHS payment via the family health services authority as full members of the primary care team;

  (2) if she will indicate the number of complementary therapists employed in (a) fund-holding general practitioner practices and (b) non-fund-holding general practitioner practices;

  (3) what steps she will take to draw doctors' and family health service authorities' attention to the new possibilities raised by the announcement of 3 December 1991 allowing doctors to delegate responsibilities to practitioners of complementary medicine provided the doctor retained clinical charge of a patient.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. However, my hon. Friend will wish to know that it is open to all GPs to employ a wide range of staff including complementary therapists" where appropriate, to assist them in the provision of general medical services.

  General practitioners are already aware that their terms of service allow them to employ a wide range of staff including complementary therapists. Family health services authorities who have management responsibility for the GP practice staff reimbursement scheme are similarly aware. The press release to which my hon. Friend refers simply clarified the existing position. We see no need therefore to issue further guidance.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effects the proposed changes in health promotion clinic fee structure will have on counselling services in primary health care and on the availability of complementary therapies.

  Mr. Sackville
  It will remain open to practices, as now, to offer these services to patients if they so wish.

  The arrangements for health promotion programmes, to be introduced from July 1993, will concentrate on action to address smoking, coronary heart disease and stroke. But there will also be transitional arrangements to help protect existing activity outside the scope of the main scheme, and we intend from 1994–95 to establish funding arrangements for action to address additional local priorities.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to her answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 82, what is her Department's latest estimate of the annual shortfall between benefits and charges for residential or nursing care; and what account was taken of this in the announcement she made on 2 October concerning the funding of community care with effect from April 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 30 November at column 82, the £140 million additional finance for community care above the £399 million transfer from social security will ensure that all authorities will be able to purchase appropriate care for people under their new responsibilities. Any difference that exists
  686
  currently between the level of benefits and charges should be substantially reduced after April 1993 when authorities negotiate fee levels with care homes or provide non-residential services for people who could be better cared for at home.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure Magnetic Resonance Imaging provision in all health authorities the size of North-Staffordshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a powerful imaging technique with the advantage that it does not involve ionising radiation. It has advantages over computerised tomography scanning in particular clinical situations but is expensive in terms of capital and running costs. Case-mix, amongst other things, will influence whether or not a provider unit will wish to have MRI facilities.

  The national health service reforms as set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" provide that hospitals and other units will be responsible for providing efficient and effective health services to meet the needs identified by health authorities. In this context, provider units will inevitably reach different decisions on whether MRI should form part of the services they provide.

  Hospitals
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of hospitals in England in 1979, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1979 there were 2,023 hospitals in England making activity returns, and in 1990–91 there were 1,578. Over the same period the number of hospital in-patient cases treated rose by an estimated 25 per cent. to 7·5 million finished consultant episodes in 1990–91. From 1991–92 returns refer to national health service trusts (which may comprise more than one unit) and district health authorities (covering all directly managed units) and data on the number of individual units are not available.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of expenditure required in Hyndburn during the first year of the transfer of funds for care in the community from the Department of Social Security to Lancashire county council's social services department.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is the responsibility of Lancashire county council to estimate the expenditure required in Lancashire for the first year of the community care reforms. The indicative special transitional grant allocation for Lancashire for 1993–94 is £20·07 million.

  Pharmaceuticals (Cost)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of pharmaceuticals to hospitals, prescribing doctors and normal general practitioner prescription costs for the past five years; and if she will make a statement.
  687
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure on drugs by the family health services (FHS) and health authorities in England is shown in the table. The FHS figures include the cost of prescriptions written by all family doctors.

  £ million

  Family health services

  Hospital and community health services

  Total

  1987–88

  1,536

  352

  1,888

  1988–89

  1,744

  380

  2,124

  1989–90

  1,942

  414

  2,356

  1990–91

  2,080

  460

  2,540

  1991–92

  2,317

  1—

  —

  1 An equivalent figure for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits her Department officials have made to each regional health authority during the last 12 months; and how many visits each regional health authority chairman has made in that period to her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the ambulance services which have applied for or have been granted status as self-governing trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Twenty four ambulance service units have been established as national health service trusts. They are as follows:

  First wave

  1. Northumbria Ambulance NHS Trust.

  2. Lincolnshire Ambulance NHS Trust.

  3. Norfolk Ambulance NHS Trust.

  4. Cornwall Ambulance Service (part of Cornwall Community Healthcare Trust)

  Second wave

  5. Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust.

  6. South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust.

  7. Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  8. Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  9. Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  10. Devon Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  11. Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  12. Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  Third wave

  13. Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  14. Durham County Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  15. West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  16. North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  17. Humberside Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  18. Nottinghamshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  19. Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  20. The Two Shires—Northampton and Buckinghamshire Ambulance NHS Trust.

  21. Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust.

  22. Dorset Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  23. Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  24. Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been saved annually by the national health service by the original selected list scheme on drugs; and what was the effect on the level of prescriptions in those catergories which were not on the selected list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1985–86 the selected list scheme saved £75 million on the drugs bill. It is not possible to make meaningful estimates for subsequent years, or to measure changes in the level of prescriptions which can be directly attributed to the scheme. We believe however that significant savings continue to be made.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a timetable showing when she plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The activities to be market tested in the Department were listed in Cmd 2101. A timetable for market-testing these activities has been drawn up with the aim of making a recommendation on the outcome of each tender by 30 September 1993. The Department has already awarded contracts for office and building services at the Department's new building in London.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which of those of her Department's activities due to be market tested by 30 September 1993, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Sackville
  We will consider the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC to the Department's market-testing programme on a case-by-case basis.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing(a) asbestos-related deaths and (b) asbestos-related disorders, by region for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available without incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the chief executives of shadow trusts who have failed to become the chief executive in the subsequent self-governing trust;

  (2) if she will list the chief executives of directly managed national health service units that have failed to be appointed to the post of chief executives in the subsequent shadow trust unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not held centrally. Chief executive appointments in shadow and operational national health service trusts are a matter for the chairman and non-executive directors of the trust concerned.

  London Health Services
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the age structure, gender breakdown and specialty mix of the 680 consultants who are identified in the Tomlinson report as surplus to requirements;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the current merit award allocation to the 680 consultants identified by the Tomlinson report as surplus to requirements; what is the total amount of these awards; and how much of this sum will be transferred to primary care provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figure of 680 consultants mentioned in the report is Sir Bernard Tomlinson's estimate of the number of surplus consultant posts, if patient inflows to inner London hospitals reduce to the maximum extent projected. We are still considering the proposals in the report, and will announce our response, including the staffing implications, in the new year.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the funds allocated in the autumn statement for the implementation of the Tomlinson report proposals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We shall put forward our proposals for the future direction of London's health services, including the financial implications, in the new year.

  GP Drug Budgets
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the total GP drug budget for 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and projected figure for 1992–93 and the proportion of that budget spent for all patients in relation to patient age by five-year intervals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure on drugs by the family health services in England amounted to £1,942 million in 1989–90, £2,080 million in 1990–91 and £2,317 million in 1991–92. The latest estimate for 1992–93 is £2,584 million. Information on the proportion of expenditure spent on patients in particular age groups is not available centrally.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress she has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in her Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of her responsibility.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: All parts of the Department are required to contribute towards the target for increased efficiency through measures aimed at cash-releasing savings or improved productivity. These are taken into account at the outset when budget allocations are made at the start of each year. For 1992–93 the Department plans to achieve efficiency gains totalling 1·4 per cent. Taken with the 1·7 per cent. gains achieved last year this more than meets the average target of 1·5 per cent. each year. The planned savings this year are made up of £1·2 million on manpower, £1·8 million on non-manpower costs and £0·6 million on the London paybill as a result of the first phase of the relocation to Leeds of the National Health Service
  690
  Management Executive. Further savings of £1·9 million are expected to be realised in 1992–93 (including on capital expenditure) through improved purchasing policies.

  The Department's agencies (NHS Estates and the Medicines Control Agency) work to separate targets. These are monitored through the respective departmental boards and the latest quarterly reports for the agencies show that they are both on course to achieve their targets by the end of the year. The NHS Estates Agency is working to an efficiency target of 4 per cent. in 1992–93 through reductions in manpower costs, improvements in procurement and increased use of video-conferencing. The target for the Medicines Control Agency is to achieve increased productivity of 3 per cent.

SCOTLAND

  Market-Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Lang
  I announced the 1992–93 market-testing programme for my Departments on 28 August 1992. The market-testing of all 26 activities is due to be complete by 30 September 1993. The time taken to complete the market test will vary depending on the value of and complexity of the activity under consideration. Testing is now under way on several activities, including pay, leave and superannuation functions and the Scottish prison service works and store.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired knights directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Lang
  This will be determined for each activity in the light of the facts of the case and after considering legal advice.

  Waivers of Disqualification
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many waivers of disqualification have been granted; and how many have been refused, for employees and trustees of charities since part I of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 came into force on 27 July.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
  No waivers of disqualification have been granted and no waivers have been refused for employees and trustees of charities since the coming into force of the Act on 27 July.

EDUCATION

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.
  691
  Mr. Forman
  Work has already begun on each of the Department's areas for market testing listed in Cmnd 2101, with a view to completing the programme by 30 September 1993. In the largest test, that of support services in the Department's headquarters, the work of developing specifications and shortlisting potential contractors is well advanced.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Forman
  The relevance of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations and the Acquired Rights Directive to an area of work being market tested depends upon the facts of each case, since there are a number of factors to be taken into account. The Department will be taking legal advice on the application of the regulations for each of the areas to be market tested by 30 September 1993.

  School Examination Results
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools were entered in the recently published schools' examinations results tables; how many entries were incorrect and for what reason; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 4,622 schools were included in the school performance tables published on 18 November. All complaints of incorrect figures are being investigated on a case by case basis. To date, the entries for some 16 schools have been found to be incorrect due to error on the part of the Department or its contractor. In all these cases, erratum slips are being issued and letters of apology sent to the schools concerned.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much in real terms his Department spent centrally on general administration in the last three years for which figures are available; what proportion of the total budget these figures represented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures are based on those set in table 1 of the departmental report, published in February this year (Cm 1911), and revalued to 1991–92 financial year prices. The figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million.

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Administration, research and miscellaneous services

  87

  91

  107

  Total Department of Education and Science

  6,659

  7,102

  7,345

  Administration expressed as a

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  percentage of total

  1·3

  1·3

  1·4

  The figures include expenditure on civil science; responsibility for this work was transferred to the Office of Science and Technology on 6 July 1992.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) physically disabled and (b) sensorily disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage they are of the total work force.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department, including the Teachers Pensions Agency, has 69 staff (3 per cent. of the work force) who are registered disabled. This includes 19 (0·8 per cent.) with sensory disabilities and 30 (1·3 per cent.) with physical disabilities. There are other staff in the Department with disabilities who have chosen not to register and who are not included in the above figures.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have declined to opt for grant-maintained status following ballots.

  Mr. Forth
  Of the 779 ballots for grant-maintained status which have been held to date, 172 (22 per cent.) have resulted in a vote against applying for grant-maintained status. Once a school has balloted in favour of applying for grant-maintained status, the governors have a statutory duty to proceed with the application by publishing proposals.

  Education Courses (London)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many courses of adult education were provided by the Inner London education authority at the time of its abolition; and what are the current corresponding figures for its successor authorities.

  Mr. Forman
  Information on the number of adult education courses is not collected by the Department, which collects only enrolment data from adult education centres.

  Natural Medicines
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is in the curricula of Government-funded medical establishments for the teaching and theory and practice of the schools of natural medicine.

  Mr. Forman
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for universities to determine the curriculum for medical education in the light of recommendations frorn the General Medical Council. The GMC is considering changes to its current recommendations. Its intention is that medical students should in future have a range of options from which to choose for part of their course. It will be for institutions to decide their own curricula taking account of the GMC's revised criteria.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the recent survey into the operation of of grant-maintained schools undertaken by the grant-maintained schools centre.

  Mr. Patten
  A survey of 103 grant-maintained schools, undertaken by the grant-maintained schools centre, was
  693
  published on 27 November 1992. The survey demonstrated clearly the benefits of grant-maintained status, which enables schools to manage their own affairs and gives them the flexibility to target funding at classroom level.

  The main findings of the survey were as follows:

  more than 80 per cent. of the schools that responded reported increased pupil numbers at the beginning of the school year 1992–93;

  more than three-quarters of schools reported an increase in teaching staff;

  more than 90 per cent. of schools experienced no difficulty in recruiting or retaining governors;

  57 per cent. of secondary comprehensive schools and 40 per cent. of primary schools reported an increase in their provision for Special Needs.

  Copies of the survey are available in the Library.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Members' Pay
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to bring forward a resolution on the pay of hon. Members, as referred to in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The resolution on Members' Salaries was debated and approved by the House on Wednesday 25 November.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to present nominations for the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Newton
  Nominations for the Select Committee on Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration were approved on Wednesday 2 December.

TRANSPORT

  Supply Vessels (Foreign Crews)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance his Department intends issuing to operators on the use of foreign crews on North sea supply vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is proposing to establish a consultation group of offshore supply vessels, including representatives of shipowners, operators, unions and the Health and Safety Executive. Matters to be considered by the group are likely to include a code of practice for operators covering manning, among other matters.

  Motorways
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of changes in motorway planning policy in relation to increasing the number of refreshment facilities.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following a commitment in the citizens charter, we announced a new policy on the provision of motorway services on 6 August. Under the 694
  new arrangements it is for the private sector rather than the Department of Transport to identify sites for motorway service areas, seek planning permission and acquire the land. The Department has since received a number of approaches from commercial organisations interested in the opportunities generated by the new policy and we hope that these will develop into firm proposals in due course.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  The timetable for market testing my Department's activities listed in Cmnd 21001 provides for the programme to be substantially completed by 30 September 1993. The activities to be tested are diverse and separate timetables are being prepared for each case. In the case of the Register of Shipping and Seamen, tenders are due to be invited in April 1993 and contracts let in September 1993.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market tested by 30 September 1993, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Norris
  The application of TUPE and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/89/EEC will depend on the particular circumstances of each market testing case, and specific legal advice will be sought in each case.

  Conservation
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State. for Transport what action he intends to take to guard against the degradation of sites of special scientific interest and other areas requiring special conservation measures under the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in the planning of new road networks including motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Our long-established policy is that our road schemes should avoid protected areas wherever possible. We consult English Nature as individual proposals are developed and publish a comprehensive environmental assessment. Special measures to protect sites or relocate species may be agreed with English Nature.

  We are already considering the implications of the EC Habitats Directive in the planning of our schemes and will observe its provisions when it is implemented.

  Disabled People
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the annual report of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received the sixth annual report of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The report makes a number of detailed recommendations on three principal subjects; the introduction of buses

  695
  that are more easily accessible to disabled people, the need for further improvements in the pedestrian environment to remove obstacles to mobility and the need for more effective education and training on mobility issues as part of vocational and other qualifications within the transport industries.

  The committee's recommendations are being studied in detail and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already been in touch with the committee about them.

  Bus Operators (Investigations)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will say how many bus operators are currently under investigation by the traffic commissioners; and if he will give in each case the commencement date of the investigation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Rail (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement for each main part of British Rail on the levels of capital spending necessary to maintain the capital stock and to avoid a deterioration of services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The distribution of capital and management resources amongst the different businesses of British Rail is a matter for the board. The additional funds announced for British Rail in the autumn statement will permit the board's total investment to continue at a level considerably higher in real terms than in the 1970s and 1980s.

  Mercantile Marine (Manpower)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to restore manpower levels within the British mercantile marine.

  Mr. Norris
  It is for the industry to determine its manpower needs. The Government are encouraging school leavers to join the Merchant Navy by providing financial support for the training of British crews and crew relief. The availability of crewing to meet defence needs is being further reviewed.

  Since the Merchant Shipping (Safe Manning Document) Regulations came into force on 28 July 1992 my Department has specified the minimum complement on all British registered ships of 500 gross tonnes and over.

  Ilkley Bypass
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to annouce the preferred route for the proposed A65 Ilkley bypass.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I hope to be able to do so very shortly.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he has taken in response to the 1991 annual report of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland; and if he will make a statement;
  696
  (2) what is his policy on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Government to intervene in the provision of rail services to rural communities;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of the decision to eliminate the rail service from Carstaris to Edinburgh in 1991 on the economy of the rural community of Clydesdale; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what action he has taken in response to the recommendation of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland in its annual report that some InterCity trains should stop at Carstairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I take note of the views, reports and other representations of all Transport Users' Consultative committees. However, the precise level of service offered on individual lines is a matter for the British Railways Board to consider.

  British Rail's InterCity business is required to operate on a commercial basis, just like its competitors. To do so, it must make the best use of available resources by tailoring its services to meet market circumstances. Uneconomic but socially necessary passenger services, where there is clear need for them, are provided by British Rail's regional railways sector. The Government provide substantial financial support through PSO grant towards the cost of such services. However, PSO is paid as a block grant to British Rail, and it is for it to allocate it on a line by line basis. Subsidy is not dependent on public ownership of the railways and we have made it clear that we intend to continue to provide subsidy where it is required following implementation of our privatisation proposals.

  Greater Manchester Buses
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances were given to GM Buses and trade unions representing the work force of GM Buses about Government support for an employee buyout prior to 23 November.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has been made clear to the PTA, GM B and their work force that the Government are in favour of employee participation in companies, and would be happy to see an employee buy-out. We have also made it clear since June this year that we expect all new sales of public transport companies to be by open competition and that we expect bids for buy-outs to be put forward on this basis. This applies to Greater Manchester Buses, and the new smaller companies that are to be formed from it.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) physically disabled and (b) sensorily disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage they are of the total work force.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Transport and its agencies had recorded 201 registered disabled staff at 1 July 1992, representing 1·3 per cent. of the total work force. Of these 170 were registered as physically disabled and 31 sensorily disabled.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to licence the channel tunnel for the transportation of plutonium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the concessionaire's commercial judgment. Eurotunnel has said that it does not intend to permit the transport of nuclear material through the channel tunnel.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he has taken of the recommendations contained in the report for the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on the environmental and public health aspects of the storage, transport and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels and plutonium, dated October 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: None.

  The report is still in draft form, awaiting comments from the European Parliament.

  Parking Offences
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will bring forward proposals for changes in the law to allow all local highways authorities to issue penalty charge notices for parking offences on the lines of the current system in London boroughs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The necessary legislation is already in place. Section 43 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 enables new arrangements for parking enforcement, similar to those currently being introduced in London under sections 63–79 of the Act, to be extended by order to other areas. Preparations for the introduction of the new arrangements in London are well advanced, but we do not expect any of the London boroughs to be in a position to begin operating them before April next year at the earliest. In accordance with undertakings given during the passage of the Bill, we do not propose to make the new powers available generally until some experience has been gained of their operation in London.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided which British Rail routes to include in the first passenger franchises; and whether this group will include the east coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  No decisions have yet been taken on which passenger rail services will be the first to be offered for franchising. We hope to take a decision on this shortly, taking into account the responses we have received to our consultation document on franchising, published in October.

  Motor Cars
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce a 100 bhp limit on motor cars sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 December 1992]: I have no plans to introduce a power limit on motor cars.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will oppose the Commission's proposal to impose a 74 kW/100 bhp power limit on all motor cycles sold in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 December 1992]: The Government have made clear their view that the statistical evidence in support of the Commission's proposal is not entirely conclusive; but this is in order to encourage safe motor cycling and I believe this is a matter for qualified majority voting, we have decided not to stand in the way of the unanimous desire of other member states. We have therefore said that we would be prepared to accept the proposal. The EC Council of Ministers is currently awaiting the opinion on first reading of the European Parliament.

  Traffic Calming, Rutland
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will grant permission for Rutland to become an accepted area for the implementation of experimental traffic-calming measures.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 December 1992]: Traffic calming is a relatively new approach to improving safety and environmental conditions. The Traffic Calming Act 1992 clarified the powers of highway authorities to undertake such works. We aim to bring forward regulations soon, covering a range of the better-known techniques. Where a highway authority wishes to use a measure not covered by regulations or clearly enabled under other legislation, it is open to that authority to seek a special authorisation from the Department.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been agreed for the payment of VAT on exports under the single market.

  Sir John Cope
  Payment of VAT on goods despatched from the United Kingdom to other member states will not normally be required under single market arrangements.

  Sales in such circumstances may be zero-rate provided that the supplier quotes the customer's VAT number on the sales invoice and holds satisfactory commercial evidence of removal of the goods from the United Kingdom. If the customer is not VAT registered, VAT will be chargeable in the United Kingdom unless the supplier is required to account for VAT in the member state of destination under distance selling arrangements such as mail order. Customs and Excise will be issuing more detailed guidance very shortly.

  Exports to countries outside the European Community will continue to be zero-rated as at present.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT registered traders were penalised for late payment of VAT in each of the last eight quarters; and how much the Exchequer received in fines resulting from this.
  699
  Sir John Cope
  The number of VAT registered taxpayers surcharged in the last eight quarters for which figures are availale are as follows:

  Number of taxpayers surcharged

  1 November 1991 to 31 January 1992

  36,457

  1 December 1991 to 29 February 1992

  36,934

  1 January to 31 March 1992

  31,261

  1 February to 30 April 1992

  37,691

  1 March to 31 May 1992

  37,090

  1 April to 30 June 1992

  37,093

  I May to 31 July 1992

  37,021

  1 June to 31 August 1992

  36,930

  The total amount of surcharge payments received during the same period is approximately £51·2 million. This figure will include payments of some surcharge assessments issued prior to 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of how the administration of the transitional value added tax system from 1 January will affect subscription sales of magazines in EC member states(a) to customers who are not registered for value added tax, (b) to customers who are registered for value added tax, (c) if sales in the country of destination are over 35,000 ecu and (d) if sales to the country of destination are over 100,000 ecu.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: After I January 1993, the tax treatment of goods supplied by VAT-registered traders to customers in other member states under the distance selling arrangements—for example by mail order—will be dependent on thresholds. Each member state has the choice of adopting a threshold of either 35,000 ecu or 100,000 ecu. If sales to a member state are beneath that member state's threshold, then VAT in the member state of origin is chargeable; in the case of supplies of magazines from the United Kingdom, this would be zero. If sales exceed the threshold laid down by a member state, then all sales to that member state are chargeable at the appropriate rate of VAT in that member state and the trader will need to be registered for VAT or appoint a tax representative in that member state. Supplies to VAT-registered traders in other member states can continue to be zero-rated on "export" if the VAT registration number of the consignee is shown on a tax invoice.

  It is not possible to estimate centrally how subscription sales of magazines will be affected. At present VAT is payable in most member states but the amount paid is not known to us. In future, traders beneath the appropriate thresholds will benefit by being able to apply our zero rate. Traders above the thresholds will need to be registered in other member states. The effect of the new arrangements on individual traders will therefore depend on their turnover in each member state.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last five years up to 30 November(a) total VAT registrations and (b) total new registrations.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 8 December 1992]: The information requested is as follows:
  700

  At 31 March

  Total VAT registrations

  Total new registrations

  1988–89

  1,623,866

  234,666

  1989–90

  1,710,106

  266,094

  1990–91

  1,745,097

  217,882

  1991–92

  1,677,829

  194,070

  11992

  1,643,679

  124,371

  11 April to 30 November.

  Figures from 1991 onwards reflect the effects of substantial increases in the registration and deregistration thresholds in the 1991 Budget.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions lay behind the estimate of the number of right-to-buy sales over the next two years included in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement on 12 November.

  Mr. Portillo
  The estimate of capital receipts in the current financial year and in 1993–94 published in the autumn statement related to local authority asset sales generally in the United Kingdom; no specific figures were published for right-to-buy sales of council dwellings. The basis of the United Kingdom estimate was given in my written answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 20 November 1992 col.418–19.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what forecast the Government have made for the United Kingdom's net contribution per annum to the EC budget in each of the next seven years arising from the Government's current EC budget proposal to the EC Council;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for proposed increases in the EC budget as a proportion of EC gross domestic product;

  (3) what benefit he assesses will accrue to the United Kingdom from an expansion in the EC budget.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The United Kingdom presidency tabled on 25 November a compromise proposal for negotiations on the future financing of the European Community; a copy has been placed in the Library. The implied annual addition to the United Kingdom's net public sector contribution arising from this proposal would be some £150 million in 1999 (at 1992 prices) above the forecast underlying cost of Community spending given the present ceiling on own resources, which would rise to £2,800 million in 1999 (at 1992 prices). The Government's aim is to achieve a settlement at Edinburgh which is affordable and consistent with the principles of budget discipline and sound public finance. Achieving agreement will assist progress on other issues, in particular enlargement.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to put into practice the agreements reached at Luxembourg on the treatment of toxic waste.
  701
  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 3 December 1992 at column 288.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumptions lay behind the estimate of the number of right-to-buy sales of council dwellings over the next two years published on 12 November.

  Sir George Young
  The estimate of capital receipts in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement related to local authority asset sales generally in the United Kingdom; no specific figures were published for right-to-buy sales of council dwellings. The United Kingdom estimate was based on information about local authorities' recent asset sales and forecast outturn in the current year, taking account of the expected effect of the receipts measure announced in the autumn statement.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals he expects against council tax valuations; and how many appeals he expects will be heard before 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is fruitless to try to predict the number of appeals. As the final banding lists are not compiled until 1 April 1993, appeals are not possible before that date. However, anyone who wishes to correct a factual error in a draft list may approach the local listing officer, who will make any necessary amendments before 1 April.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to ensure that local authorities set their council tax at an affordable level.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am confident that the vast majority of local authorities will play their part in setting affordable council taxes by setting sensible budgets. I have made clear that I shall not hesitate to use my capping powers to protect council tax payers if authorities fail to do so.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce measures to reduce the level of council tax in those areas with an above-average proportion of houses in bands D and E.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The council tax is a fair tax, which will take account of different individual circumstances and will be applied consistently across the country. The transitional reduction scheme will ensure that households in bands D and E will not face an increase of more than £2·50 and £2·75 a week respectively, if their councils spend at a reasonable level and have a good record on tax collection.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what Government support is being provided to reduce the impact of the new council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We will be providing £340 million in transitional relief in 1993–94 to limit the initial increase between household community charge bills and the council tax.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the assumptions behind the recent revenue support grant settlement for local authorities, which he announced on 26 November.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. and learned Friend gave a very full statement on 26 November. Consultation on his proposals for the settlement are now under way and he has nothing further to add at this stage.

  South West Water (Capital Investment)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the level of capital investment required by South West Water as a result of European legislation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Our obligations for the time being under European Community legislation must be met, though we seek to ensure that it is done at the lowest cost to consumers. We consider that revisions of certain features of both the drinking water and bathing waters directives are overdue, and impose unnecessary costs on European consumers.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent of ozone level depletion in January 1992 over northern England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent research findings relating to ozone depletion over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The results from measurement sites in Northern Europe and from satellites indicate that ozone levels in January 1992 were the lowest ever recorded at about 20 per cent. below the long-term January mean. This is outside the previously recorded range of natural variability. However, exceptional meteorological conditions involving the lowest surface pressure recorded this century, are thought to have contributed to low ozone levels. Results from succeeding spring months were within the range of long-term variation.

  Local Government Structure
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he expects to have been made by the Local Government Commission in reviewing the structure of local government by the end of 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  By the end of 1993 the Local Government Commission should have completed its reviews of local government structure, boundaries and electoral arrangements in the Isle of Wight, Derbyshire, and Cleveland and Durham and have reached the final stage of its reviews of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset and Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire. The Commission should also have begun some of the reviews in the second tranche of its work programme.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which environmental groups he has met in the past year to discuss issues relating to the use of nuclear power in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  I met members of Greenpeace on 21 September and discussed a number of issues with them including ones relating to the use of nuclear power in the United Kingdom.

  London Forum
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a further statement about the London Forum.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make a further announcement about the London Forum shortly.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has as President of the Council of Ministers for the Environment to ensure a higher level of compliance by member states with EC directives applying to water quality.

  Mr. Maclean
  We wish to see the establishment of a small community inspectorate to audit the performance of national enforcement agencies; and the harmonisation of reporting methods under the Standardised Reporting Directive. During our presidency, we have successfully encouraged the formation of a network of environmental enforcement agencies to encourage exchange of information on enforcement practice.

  Urban Areas (Regeneration)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to assist the regeneration of urban areas.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government remain strongly committed to the regeneration of urban areas. We have provided over £90 million more resources for my Department's urban group of programmes than previously planned for 1993–94. This will allow full funding for each of the 31 successful city challenge areas next year as part of their £37–5 million five-year programme. It will also allow the urban development corporations to continue to develop their areas. The Urban Regeneration Agency will build on UDC experience in regenerating land for the benefit of urban areas. We have enabled local authorities to make greater use of capital receipts, backed by £20 million of capital partnership resources from the urban programme. Next year we will also be opening four new inner city task forces, in Birmingham, Plymouth, Stockton and Haringey.

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to his Department's consultative proposals for reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

  Council Rents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes there have been in the average rent for(a) council houses and (b) council flats from 1979 to 1991 in England.

  Sir George Young
  My Department does not have separate estimates of average rents for local authority houses and flats. The estimated average weekly rents for council dwellings at April of each year in England from 1979 to 1991 are:

  Year

  £ per week at April

  1979

  6·41

  1980

  7·70

  1981

  11·42

  1982

  13·48

  1983

  13·97

  1984

  14·66

  1985

  15·54

  1986

  16·36

  1987

  17·70

  1988

  18·82

  1989

  20·70

  1990

  23·76

  1991

  27·28

  The estimates for 1979 to 1990 are based on the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's annual survey of local authority housing rents. The estimate for 1991 is derived from local authorities' housing revenue account subsidy claim form returns to the Department.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government introduced comprehensive new controls on industrial pollution in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, part I of which requires operators of processes with the greatest potential for pollution to seek prior authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under a system of integrated pollution control.

  Integrated pollution control came into effect for all new processes on 1 April 1991, and the requirement for authorisation of existing processes will extend to all relevant industries by 1995. By the end of 1992–93 some 650 plants in 13 industrial groups will have become subject to IPC.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to hold discussions with the National Federation of Housing Associations on the future of housing associations.

  Sir George Young
  My colleagues are in frequent contact with the National Federation of Housing Associations and discuss a wide range of issues of concern to housing associations. I last met them on 12 November, but I have no immediate plans for future discussions.

  Repossessed Homes
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will cause an investigation to be made by the Building Societies Commission or otherwise into the issue of insider rings of solicitors and estate agents manipulating the market in repossessed homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Following recent press reports, the Director General of Fair Trading has commenced inquiries with a view to the possibility of taking action against individuals under the Estate Agents Act 1979. Under the Act the director general may in certain circumstances prohibit individuals from engaging further in estate agency work.

  Alerce Timber (Seizure)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Customs and Excise seizure of a quantity of alerce timber in Oxfordshire in May.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Customs and Excise seized a quantity of alerce timber banned from international trade under CITES—Conference on International Trade in Endangered Species. Decisions on whether to institute legal proceedings are a matter for the commissioners of Customs and Excise and I understand that the commissioners, on the basis of the evidence before them, do not feel that they would be justified in instituting criminal proceedings in this case. The timber is now held in safe storage and Customs are examining disposal options.

  Local Authorities (Responsibilities)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory responsibilities currently in force specifically for local authorities in Northumberland at(a) district level and (b) county level which were enacted in the last 30 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The only relevant statute of which I am aware is the Northumberland County Council Act 1970, in so far as it has not been repealed by the Tyne and Wear County Council Acts of 1976 and 1980. The hon. Member may wish to contact Northumberland county council for the information he is seeking.

  EC Environment Policy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in achieving Her Majesty's Government's policy objectives for EC environmental protection policy during the presidency of the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The United Kingdom presidency has so far secured agreement to the regulation on the transboundary shipment of waste and made good progress on a number of other proposals. In addition we have highlighted the importance of integrating environmental concerns into other policy areas and carried forward work to follow up the Earth summit. We have secured a Commission commitment to report on implementation 706
  and enforcement of Community environmental legislation, and have established a network of EC environment enforcement authorities. We expect to make further progress on a number of proposals at the Environment Council on 15–16 December.

  Flats Over Shops Initiative
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was(a) the number of applications received for the flats over shops initiative in England and Wales for 1991–92 and (b) the total value of these applications;

  (2) how many flats have become available for rent in England and Wales as a result of the flats over shops initiative.

  Sir George Young
  A total of 210 local authorities in England applied for resources totalling over £41 million in the first year (1992–93) of the fiats over shops scheme, of which 57 received supplementary credit approvals totalling £5,047.500. Should all these proceed to plan, then it is likely that the number of additional units of accommodation raised will be in the region of 400. In addition, the Housing Corporation has a programme of its own. A number of other bodies—including some retailers—are seeking to bring vacant space above shops back into use, partly stimulated by the Government's initiative. Separate arrangements, which are not directly comparable, are operated in Wales by the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Local Authority Receipts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total level of receipts likely to accrue to each local authority in England during the current financial year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities provide returns to the Department giving the capital receipts they received in 1991–92 and the receipts they are forecasting to receive in 1992–93. I have arranged for this information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the amount of capital receipts likely to be released in the Hyndhurn constituency during the calendar year 1993 and the financial year 1993–94 from the sale of council-owned dwellings under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Sir George Young
  Projections of likely future right-to-buy receipts are not made for individual local authority areas.

  Abandoned Mines
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the National Rivers Authority concerning flooding and polluted water leaking contamination into rivers and streams from abandoned mines and proposed abandoned mines, including dates of meetings and sites under discussion.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend and I have referred to the topic from time to time in discussions with members of the National Rivers Authority's board, and there have
  707
  been discussions and exchanges of information between my officials and those of the N RA. I expect these contacts to continue as we give further consideration to policy on this issue.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if she will seek to amend section 89 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to make owners of abandoned workings liable for prosecution.

  Mr. Maclean
  The recent Environment White Paper confirmed that the Government are considering the framework of legal responsibility for pollution from abandoned mines. This will include consideration of section 89 of the 1991 Act.

  Ms.Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if she will list all abandoned mines known to cause water pollution problems.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally. The National Rivers Authority has been reviewing data on water pollution from abandoned mines, and I expect its assessment to he published within the next few months.

  Domestic Water Meters
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals for legislation to regulate the installation of domestic water meters in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. It is a matter for each water company to decide whether to install water meters in the light of the circumstances in its area. Provisions governing the installation and positioning of water meters are contained in the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water (Meters) Regulations 1988.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he expects the pilot study he has commissioned into cetaceans in the channel to report.

  Mr. Maclean
  The results of this joint European proposal to carry out a major trans-boundary survey of cetaceans in the North sea, Kattegat, Skaggerak and the channel will help to identify important habitat areas for these species and potential threats to them. The survey will also aid Community states in fulfilling their international nature conservation obligations and the results will provide a basis for the development of an integrated management plan for the region.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of right-to-buy applications received and registered by each local authority in England for(a) the year ended September 1991 and (b) the year ended September 1992;

  (2) what was the number of sales completed by each local authority in England under right to buy for (a) the year ended September 1991 and (b) the year ended September 1992.

  Sir George Young
  Information on right-to-buy applications and completed sales for each local authority 708
  in England is published in the quarterly publication "Local Housing Statistics". Estimates are for financial years, or parts of financial years. The July 1992 issue (No. 102) contains figures for the financial year 1990–91 (table 5B) and provisional information for 1991–92 (table 5A). Details for the first quarter of 1992–93 were given in table 5 of the October 1992 issue (No. 103). Updated information covering the first half of 1992–93 will be available in the new year. Corresponding estimates for the periods requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the proportion of(a) houses arid (b) flats sold to sitting tenants in England and Wales which have been repurchased by English and Welsh local authorities under housing defects legislation for each year since 1982;

  (2) how many (a) houses and (b) flats sold to sitting tenants under the right to buy have been repurchased by English local authorities under housing defects legislation for each year since 1982.

  Sir George Young
  In England 12,165 houses and flats have been repurchased under the legislation by local authorities, representing 1·1 per cent. of all sales by those local authorities under the right to buy to the end of June 1992. In Wales the corresponding figures are 467 and 0·5 per cent. The number of properties repurchased each year has been as follows:

  (a) Houses

  (b) Flats

  England:

  1984–85

  78

  1

  1985–86

  2,342

  16

  1986–87

  2,550

  30

  1987–88

  2,006

  35

  1988–89

  1,674

  14

  1989–90

  1,258

  7

  1990–91

  1,306

  11

  1991–92

  834

  3

  Wales:

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  22

  3

  1986–87

  90

  —

  1987–88

  214

  2

  1988–89

  63

  1

  1989–90

  38

  1

  1990–91

  17

  1

  1991–92

  12

  1

  Source: Local authority returns

  The available data on repurchases does not include the year in which the dwelling was purchased under the right to buy so it is not possible to calculate the proportions of each year's sales that have been repurchased.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) physically disabled and (b) senSorily disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage they are of the total work force.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department employs 97 disabled people and this represents some 1·5 per cent. of the non industrial work force. Of the 97 disabled people, we are aware of 25 who have a sensory disability.

  County Archive Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the continuation of the county archive services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the context of the review of local government structure by the Local Government Commission we have received representations from the Society of Archivists, the Association of County Archivists, the National Council on Archives and the Royal Commission on Historic Manuscripts, as well as representations from other interested parties and members of the public.

  Our policy guidance to the Commission highlights the need for it to consider arrangements for the maintenance and management of archives. Our objective is for local authorities to continue to develop local policies for the collection and preservation of archives, and for making them available for public inspection whilst maintaining the integrity of existing collections.

  Building and Construction
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of the prospects for increased activity in the building and construction industry.

  Sir George Young
  The prospects for increased activity in the construction industry will have been boosted by the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. The action to revive the housing market, the "window of opportunity" for use of local authority capital receipts, the changes in capital allowances and the protection of many key capital spending programmes will all help create work in the industry. Most important of all is the reduction in interest rates, which are now at their lowest level since January 1978. All that is needed now is a return of confidence, and that should begin to re-assert itself now that the Government have set out their strategy for growth.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to change the standard spending assessment calculation for under-fives from a population base to a provision base.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Our proposals for the 1993–94 standard spending assessments do not include any amendment to the education SSA element for under-fives. However all representations on these proposals will be carefully considered before final decisions are reached.

  Water
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the chairmen of water companies in England and Wales about water supply disconnections.

  Mr. Maclean
  Both Ministers and officials from time to time meet the chairmen of water companies and discuss 710
  matters of mutual interest, including disconnections. For example, this subject was raised briefly when Lord Strathclyde and I met the chairmen of the Water Services Association and the Water Companies' Association on 1 December 1992.

  Housing
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses were completed in Essex for every year since 1979, broken down by local authority district and between private, local authority and housing association ownership management.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of housebuilding completions by sector for each local authority area in Essex are shown in the publications "Local Housing Statistics" and "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980–89".

  Figures for 1979 are in table 5 of the May 1980 edition (issue No. 53) of "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1980 to 1984 are in "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas"; tables 1.1 to 1.5. Latest figures for 1985 to 1991 and the first half of 1992 are in tables 1(a) to 1(h) of the October 1992 edition (issue No. 103) of "Local Housing Statistics". Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Budget Allocations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the budget allocations made to each region for city grant for each year from 1989–90(a) at current prices and (b) at 1989–90 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  City grant is a demand-led grant programme and not allocated on a regional basis. Details of the amount of city grant approved by region and financial year are listed.

  Region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992 to date

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Prices at date of approval

  West Midlands

  19·34

  14·10

  15·84

  13·61

  North West

  24·33

  15·85

  21·15

  16·10

  Northern

  6·45

  2·39

  8·81

  6·77

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5·07

  16·60

  11·87

  3·61

  London

  5·66

  2·56

  5·38

  1·60

  East Midlands

  4·34

  1·73

  8·23

  2·00

  South West

  —

  0·26

  4·83

  3·70

  65·19

  53·49

  76·11

  47·39

  Amount of City Grant approved (1989–90 prices)

  West Midlands

  19·34

  13·03

  13·68

  11·25

  North West

  24·33

  14·65

  18·27

  13·31

  Northern

  6·45

  2·21

  7·61

  5·60

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5·07

  15·34

  10·25

  2·98

  London

  5·66

  2·36

  4·65

  1·32

  East Midlands

  4·34

  1·60

  7·11

  1·65

  South West

  —

  0·24

  4·17

  3·06

  65·19

  49·43

  65·74

  39·17

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the budget allocations made to each inner-city task force by his Department for each year from 1989–90(a) at current prices and (b) at 1989–90 prices.
  711
  Mr. Squire
  Responsibility for the task force unit transferred to my Department from the Department of Trade and Industry on 1 June 1992. The expenditure by each inner city task force for the period from 1989–90 to 1991–92 is set out in the following table.

  Expenditure by task forces 1989–92

  Task force

  1989–90 (£'000s)

  1990–91 (£'000s)

  1991–92 (£'000)

  Birmingham

  East

  958·9

  753·5

  999·1

  Handsworth

  311·9

  516·8

  8·0

  Bradford

  129·6

  1,107·4

  1,264·7

  Bristol

  920·6

  1,316·3

  1,073·9

  Coventry

  879·0

  802·3

  1,278·3

  Derby

  —

  62·2

  807·2

  Doncaster

  1,619·4

  1,192·4

  188·5

  Hartlepool

  941·4

  1,350·7

  769·6

  Hull

  —

  —

  80·5

  Leeds

  1,211·8

  1,021·5

  1,180·6

  Leicester

  981·5

  212·9

  2·8

  Liverpool

  297·7

  1,059·4

  1,422·9

  London

  Deptford

  48·5

  1,144·8

  1,208·7

  Hackney

  —

  —

  158·8

  North Peckham

  766·2

  1,530·4

  1,391·9

  Spitalfields

  859·5

  921·1

  1,243·9

  West London

  502·2

  1,163·8

  1,481·2

  Manchester

  996·7

  1,920·0

  2,203·1

  Middlesbrough

  979·7

  1,006·9

  1,160·1

  Nottingham

  998·4

  1,100·3

  857·2

  Preston

  487·8

  408·9

  87·7

  Rochdale

  908·7

  632·6

  254·6

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  16·8

  Wirral

  —

  317·9

  701·2

  Wolverhampton

  1,269·8

  326·7

  99·6

  Note: Allocation of the task force budget of £23 million for 1992–93 is not yet complete. Figures are not available on a 1989–90 cost basis. To provide this would incur disproportionate costs.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weight he gives to service-specific costs such as education inflation and social service provision inflation in calculating standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Standard spending assessments are distributed according to general principles which best reflect the differences in the costs of providing a standard level of service between local authorities. Total standard spending and its division between services, takes account of a number of factors including service responsibilities, cost pressures and what the country can afford.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Curry
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC 712
  will apply to an individual case depends on the facts of that case; and there are a number of tests to be applied. For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred.

  We are seeking the advice of our legal advisers about the relevance of TUPE on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Curry
  The timetable set for market testing the Departmental activities listed in the citizens charter first report: 1992 (CM 2101) requires the whole programme to be completed by 30 September 1993.

  Planning is well under way on individual market tests and it is anticipated that the first invitations to tender will be issued early in 1993.

  Agri-environment Measures
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to set priorities for the implementation of Agri-Environment Regulation (2078/92).

  Mr. Curry
  Our priorities, based on advice from Government agencies and others, include nitrate reduction measures where this is necessary to protect drinking water sources, reduction of livestock numbers where this will be environmentally beneficial, measures to increase the environmental benefits of set-aside, the encouragement of organic farming and the management of land for public access and recreation. Details of our proposals will be issued for consultation this winter. They are additional to the expansion of environmentally sensitive areas already under way.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the relationship between the agri-environment package and the implementation of the national sustainability plan.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is consulting widely on the scope of the United Kingdom's report to the Sustainable Development Commission. Our proposals for agri-environment measures, on which we will also consult widely, will reflect Government commitments on agriculture and the environment.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent his proposals on reorganisation of the Potato Marketing Board are affected by the most recent EC reform proposals for potato marketing.

  Mr. Curry
  I have made no proposals on reorganisation of the Potato Marketing Board. The EC proposals in their present form would require fundamental changes to the potato marketing scheme and the board's powers.The Agriculture Bill, currently in another place, contains enabling powers for the potato marketing scheme to be revoked, the Potato Marketing Board to be wound up and its assets transferred to a successor body or bodies. This flexibility does not exist in the European Communities Act
  713
  which would otherwise have to be used to wind up the scheme and the board if the current EC proposals were agreed.

  GATT
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect of the GATT round on the price of(a) beef and (b) milk within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  None. As the EC Commission has made clear, the agreement on agricultural issues reached with the United States in the context of the current GATT round is consistent with the reforms to CAP regimes agreed earlier this year.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date officials of his Department and other invited persons will be meeting Dr. Narang.

  Mr. Soames
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Ewes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish figures showing the total number of breeding ewes within the less-favoured areas in England and Wales in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Breeding Ewes within less favoured areas

  England and Wales (thousands)

  1987

  7,863

  1988

  8,163

  1989

  8,507

  1990

  8,696

  1991

  8,727

  Source: June Agricultural Censuses 1987 to 1991—results for 1992 are not yet available in this form.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional training veterinary surgeons will have to undertake in order to carry out the ante and post-mortem inspection proposed under the EC directive on slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Soames
  Ante and post-mortem inspections are already required under United Kingdom legislation. For meat going for intra-community trade the ante-mortem must be carried out by an official veterinary surgeon and the new rules extend this requirement to meat going for domestic consumption. In the United Kingdom postmortem inspections will generally continue to be carried out by meat inspectors although in many other member states it is normally performed by a fully qualified veterinary surgeon.

  The degree qualification obtained by every veterinary surgeon fully equips him or her to perform both ante and
  714
  post-mortem inspections. In order to be designated by the Minister as an official veterinary surgeon in Great Britain a veterinary surgeon has to undertake a short course organised by the Department to bring him or her up to date with the latest United Kingdom and EC meat hygiene technology, legislation and practice.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider the desirability of linking grants for set-aside land in suitable locations in the upper and middle zones of river catchments, to a national scheme of grants for the construction of simple bunds and associated temporary sluices that would impound heavy natural run-off of water to avoid flooding.

  Mr. Curry
  Under domestic legislation, the Ministry makes grant aid available to the National Rivers Authority, local authorities and internal drainage boards in support of flood defence measures which are technically sound, economically worthwhile and environmentally acceptable. The rules for land set-aside under the new EC arable arrangements from autumn 1992 require the land to be kept in good agricultural condition during the set-aside period. It would be incompatible with this requirement to permit the construction of structures to prevent run-off on set-aside land.

DEFENCE

  NATO Status of Forces Agreement
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in the renegotiation with the German authorities of the supplementary agreement to the NATO status of forces agreement; when he expects the negotiations to be concluded; and when he expects a new agreement to come into force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The review of the supplementary agreement to the NATO status of forces agreement began in September 1991. Negotiations have progressed very well and are now nearing their final stage. Seven states, including the United Kingdom and Germany are parties to the agreement and it is not possible therefore to say exactly when negotiations will be completed.

  Menwith Hill Station (Visit)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official assistance was given to the new director of the National Security Agency in connection with his visit to Menwith Hill station on 26 September.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All arrangements in support of visits by senior US officials to Menwith Hill station are a matter for the US Department of Defence.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the visit by representatives of the Government to Menwith Hill station around 11 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There was no visit to Menwith Hill station by representatives of the Government on or around 11 October.

  Greenwich Hospital Trust
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last published accounts for Greenwich hospital trust; and when he will make available a copy of the next available accounts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Greenwich hospital's accounts for 1990–91 were ordered to be printed on 23 January 1992 and published accordingly by HMSO as House of Commons paper No. 203 of 1991–92. The 1991–92 accounts are nearing completion with a view to presentation to the House early in 1993.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the appointment of Hunters to act as agents for Greenwich hospital trust was subject to competitive tendering; and when the contract was last put out to tender.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. In 1968, Mr. D. C. Hunter, FRICS, was, with Admiralty Board approval, appointed manager of the hospital's Greenwich estate. In 1986, with the approval of the Greenwich hospital advisory panel, the appointment was transferred to Mr. Hunter's firm, Hunters, for a three-year trial period, with Mr. Hunter retaining responsibility for overall supervision of Greenwich hospital's interests. Although Mr. Hunter formally retired in 1989, he continues to act as a consultant to the firm. After the end of the trial period, the arrangement was reviewed and it was decided that existing contractual arrangements should continue.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation was undertaken with commercial tenants of Greenwich hospital trust about the appointment of the trust's agents to handle matters relating to the commercial leases held for the trust.

  Amalgamations in 1992

  Date

  Unit

  Full Title

  Formed from

  25 July 1992

  1 and 2 RGJ

  The Royal Green Jackets

  Reduction from 3 battalions to 2

  31 July 1992

  RDG

  The Royal Dragoon Guards

  Amalgamation of 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards and 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards

  1 August 1992

  1 and 2 RRF

  The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  Reduction from 3 batallions to 2

  3 August 1992

  2 RTR

  2nd Royal Tank Regiment

  Amalgamation of 2nd Royal Tank Regiment and 3rd Royal Tank Regiment

  9 September 1992

  1 and 2 PWRR

  The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshires)

  Forms from the amalgamation of The Royal Hampshire Regiment and The Queen's Regiment (during period August 1992 to February 1993)

  14 September 1992

  2GR

  2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles)

  Amalgamation of the 1st and 2nd battalions 2nd King Edward VH's Own Gurkha " Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles)

  5 October 1992

  1 and 2 R Anglian

  The Royal Anglian Regiment

  Reduction from 3 battalions to 2

  19 October 1992

  HCR

  The Household Cavalry Regiment

  Union of The Life Guards and The Blues and Royals

  1 December 1992

  LD

  The Light Dragoons

  Amalgamation of 13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own) and 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars

  4 December 1992

  KRH

  The King's Royal Hussars

  Amalgamation of The Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales's Own) and 14th/20th King's Hussars

  716
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Available records do not indicate whether such consultation was undertaken. It is not normal commercial practice for a landlord to consult tenants before appointing an agent.

  Windsor Castle (Fire)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of military personnel at Windsor castle following the recent fire; what charges are being made for the cost of those services; and by whom they will be met.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the fire and the immediate aftermath, in addition to men from the Windsor castle guard, some 200 soldiers from the Household Cavalry regiment were deployed to assist in removal of precious artifacts to a place of safety. Once the fire had been extinguished, soldiers assisted with the transfer of the previously removed objects back to their proper locations. During the period when members of the castle guard were providing assistance, the guard was reinforced with men from the 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles. Apart from charges which are being raised to cover the cost of meals provided for firemen at Combermere barracks, no charges are being raised for this assistance.

  Amalgamations
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out details of amalgamations or disbandments of combat arms units of the Army which have taken place during 1992, giving dates, the units affected and the titles of regiments formed by amalgamations; and if he will set out the timetable for future amalgamations or disbandments of combat arms units.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the tables.
  717

  Amalgamations—Future timetable

  Date

  Unit

  Full title

  Formed from

  27 February 1993

  1 and 2 LI

  The Light Infantry

  Reduction from 3 battalions to 2

  25 June 1993

  QRL

  The Queen's Royal Lancers

  Amalgamation of 17th/21st Lancers and 16/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers

  July 1993

  1 RTR

  1st Royal Tank Regiment

  Amalgamation of 1st Royal Tank Regiment and 4th Royal Tank Regiment

  August 1993

  QRH

  The Queen's Royal Hussars (The Queen's Own and Royal Irish)

  Amalgamation of The Queen's Own Hussars and The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

  August 1993

  1 R IRISH

  The Royal Irish Regiment (27th (Iniskilling), 83rd, 87th and Ulster Defence Regiment)

  Amalgamation of 1st and 2nd battalions The Royal Irish Regiment

  August 1993

  1 CS (to be confirmed)

  The Cheshire and Staffordshire Regiment

  Amalgamation of The Cheshire Regiment and The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  November 1993

  1 SG

  Scots Guards

  2nd battalion in suspended animation

  December 1993

  1 COLDM GDS

  Coldstream Guards

  2nd battalion in suspended animation

  April 1994

  RGBWR (to be confirmed)

  The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  Amalgamation of The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire) and The Gloucestershire Regiment

  September 1994

  to be announced

  to be announced

  Amalgamation of Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons and The Gordon Highlanders)

  October 1994

  to be announced

  to be announced

  Amalgamation of The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment) and The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  November 1994

  1 GREN GDS

  Grenadier Guards

  2nd battalion in suspended animation

  March 1995

  1 RGR

  1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  Amalgamation of 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles) and 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles

  March 1995

  2RGR

  2nd Battalion the The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles renames

  March 1995

  3 RGR

  3rd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles renames

  March 1997

  2 RGR

  2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  Amalgamation of the 2nd and 3rd battalions The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  Note: Actual dates shown where known, others are approximate and subject to amendment.

  Military Aid
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the value of military aid supplied to overseas countries in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has no military aid budget. The primary responsibility for funding military training assistance and other forms of aid lies with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and MOD assists where it is compatible with defence interests. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Liquid Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much liquid radioactive waste was dealt with annually since 1962 by the present liquid radioactive waste treatment plant at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  The volumes, in cubic metres, are as follows:

  Year

  Volume

  1962

  46,545

  1963

  39,950

  1964

  36,435

  1965

  34,661

  1966

  35,748

  718

  Year

  Volume

  1967

  34,643

  1968

  35,250

  1969

  32,700

  1970

  34,200

  1971

  34,400

  1972

  31,200

  1973

  33,000

  1974

  25,500

  1975

  25,500

  1976

  24,000

  1977

  25,800

  1978

  17,700

  1979

  21,300

  1980

  22,650

  1981

  16,800

  1982

  18,750

  1983

  15,900

  1984

  15,900

  1985

  15,300

  1986

  15,450

  1987

  14,250

  1988

  14,100

  1989

  13,800

  1990

  12,596

  1991

  13,500

  Note: Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom's active stockpile were declared one-point safe.

  Mr. Aitken
  Each design of nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom's active stockpile was declared one-point safe before entering service.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the establishment of a nuclear weapons safety group by his Department on the lines proposed in the Oxburgh report.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 6 November at column 532.

  Helicopter Noise
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans there are to extend the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme to include dwellings which are on regular helicopter flight paths;

  (2) what progress has been made on the review of the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme; and when he intends to reform the scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A study is underway to establish whether the boundary of the existing noise scheme at Bessbrook should be extended in some areas to take into account the intensity of noise created by helicopters on approach and departure routes. The study is being conducted in close consultation with Newry and Mourne district council and we would expect the results to be available around mid-1993. If these show that additional properties are subject to the qualifying noise levels for sound insulation grant we will consider extending entitlement to those areas and, if appropriate, review the implications for other helicopter landing sites in Northern Ireland. We have no plans to introduce schemes other than in the vicinity of helicopter landing sites.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to including individual dwellings in the vicinity of look-out posts and occasional helicopter landing sites within the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At look out posts and occasional helicopter landing sites the average 70dB(A) noise contour upon which our existing scheme is based would not be triggered from the small number of flights involved. It is not therefore proposed to include these sites in our scheme.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring of helicopter noise and flight frequencies has been carried out, and at what locations, as part of the review of the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A pilot noise survey including a daily check of flight movements at Bessbrook, which we believe is the worst affected area, has already commenced and is continuing. Our efforts will be concentrated there until data from this task and a subsequent full noise survey have been collected and analysed.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the current review of the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme was initiated.
  720
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  April 1991.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the high incidence of night-time helicopter flights in parts of Northern Ireland during the review of the helicopter noise insulation grant scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is because of our concern about the number of night-time helicopter flights in certain parts of Northern Ireland that this aspect forms an important part of our review.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to introducing helicopter noise insulation schemes at landing sites excluded from the last such grant scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We will consider the inclusion of other helicopter landing sites in Northern Ireland when the results of the noise survey at Bessbrook have been evaluated and the review of our night-time policy is complete.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before:30 September 1993.

  Mr. Aitken
  The table gives the information the hon. Gentleman requests for significant activities to be tested in this timescale. It should be noted that the planning dates given are indicative only, as the length of the consultation period and the negotiations which follow are not easy to predict in each case.

  Main activities to be tested by 30 September 1993

  Estimated completion date

  Accommodation and office services

  Property management (completed August 1992) Others March and September 1993

  Elementary Flying Training

  January 1993

  Engineering services and support

  RAF Scampton (completed) 30 July 1993 (18 Base Workshop) Helicopter and aircraft support—RNAS Yeovilton (completed)

  Fire services

  31 August 1993

  Freight delivery

  BAOR freight services (completed)

  31 August 1993 Military container service

  Grounds maintenance

  September 1993

  Information Technology services

  February 1993

  Motor Transport

  July 1993

  In-service equipment support

  May 1993 (Trident in-service support)

  March 1993 Flight checking

  Nuclear weapon research and production facilities

  April 1993

  Operation of experimental aircraft fleet

  September 1993

  Vehicle maintenance

  May 1993

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which of those of his Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of
  721
  Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Aitken
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply to an individual case will depend on the facts of that case. There are a number of tests to be applied; for example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred. We are seeking the advice of our legal advisers about the relevance of TUPE on a case by case basis.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the development of a European maritime patrol aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  I understand that a number of European aircraft manufacturers, including British Aerospace, are conducting exploratory studies into a possible European maritime patrol aircraft. I would be happy to consider such an aircraft as a possible contender to meet our future requirements, were it to be available.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom will participate in the feasibility stage of the European future large aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. However, we will continue to follow developments on the project.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's requirement for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department intends shortly to issue a request to industry for information, on possible means of upgrading the maritime patrol capability currently provided by the Nimrod MR2 aircraft. This will allow the identification of possible enhancements to, or replacements for, the present aircraft and their systems around the turn of the century. The responses to this request will enable my Department to assess possible solutions and establish which offers best value for money in meeting the requirement.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the need for the United Kingdom to acquire a replacement for the Hercules aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is currently assessing the need for a replacement for the Hercules aircraft against our future air transport requirements. It is out intention to procure any such replacement aircraft off-the-shelf.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the prospects for the European future large aircraft project following recent progress on the European fighter aircraft project.

  Mr. Aitken
  As my Department is not participating in the European future large aircraft project, we have made no assessment of its prospects following progress on EFA. We will, however, follow any developments.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of(a) agricultural inspectors and (b) factory inspectors in the HSE area offices in (i) London and the south-east and (ii) the midlands region in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  (a) The information available for Health and Safety Executive (HSE) agricultural inspectors is as follows:

  (i) London and south-east region

  (ii) Midlands region

  1985

  10

  31

  1986

  8

  34

  1987

  9

  31

  1988

  10

  30

  1989

  9

  31

  1990

  11

  30

  1991

  10

  27

  1992

  10

  30

  Note Figures are for I April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by these regions because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (b) The number of factory inspectors employed by HSE in (i) London and the south-east and (ii) the midlands region in each year since 1978 was:

  Year

  (i) London and South East region

  (ii) Midlands region

  1978

  98·0

  122·0

  1979

  108·0

  124·0

  1980

  110·0

  132·0

  1981

  111·0

  127·0

  1982

  105·0

  118·0

  1983

  99·0

  109·0

  1984

  91·0

  103·0

  1985

  100·0

  106·0

  1986

  94·0

  105·5

  1987

  94·5

  104·5

  1988

  96·0

  101·5

  1989

  96·0

  103·5

  1990

  93·0

  116·0

  1991

  95·0

  120·5

  1992

  99·0

  132·5

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of(a) nurses and (b) doctors employed in the HSE area offices in the (i) London and south-east and (ii) midlands regions, in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  (a) The information available for nurses employed by the Health and Safety Executive in (i) London and the south-east and (ii) the midlands is as follows:

  723

  (i) London and South East region

  (ii) Midlands region

  1985

  4

  8

  1986

  4

  8

  1987

  5

  8

  1988

  5

  9

  1989

  6

  8

  1990

  5

  9

  1991

  6

  8

  1992

  7

  9

  Note: Figures are for I April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by these regions because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (b) The information available for doctors employed by the Health and Safety Executive in (i) London arid the south-east and (ii) the midlands is:

  (i) London and the South East region

  (ii) Midlands region

  1985

  10·0

  12·0

  1986

  10·0

  10·5

  1987

  6·5

  10·5

  1988

  4·5

  10·0

  1989

  4·5

  8·0

  1990

  4·0

  9·0

  1991

  3·5

  8·0

  1992

  6·5

  10·0

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by these regions because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of(a) agricultural inspectors, (b) factory inspectors, (c) doctors and (d) nurses in the Health and Safety Executive area offices in the north-west region in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  (a) The available information for Health and Safety Executive (HSE) agricultural inspectors in the north-west region is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  12

  1986

  13

  1987

  13

  1988

  10

  1989

  12

  1990

  14

  1991

  14

  1992

  17

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by this region because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (b) The number of factory inspectors employed by HSE in the north-west region in each year since 1978 was:
  724

  Number

  1978

  92

  1979

  97

  1980

  90

  1981

  93

  1982

  87

  1983

  85

  1984

  83

  1985

  85·5

  1986

  78·5

  1987

  78·5

  1988

  74·5

  1989

  80

  1990

  83·5

  1991

  82·5

  1992

  79·5

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  (c) The information available for HSE doctors in the north-west region is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  10

  1986

  8

  1987

  9

  1988

  7

  1989

  7

  1990

  5

  1991

  7

  1992

  7·5

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by this region because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (d) The information available for HSE nurses in the north-west region is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  7

  1986

  7

  1987

  7

  1988

  7

  1989

  7

  1990

  6

  1991

  7

  1992

  8

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by this region because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of(a) factory inspectors, (b) agricultural inspectors, (c) doctors arid (d) nurses in the Health and Safety Executive area offices in the Yorkshire and north-east region in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  (a) The number of factory inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the Yorkshire and north-east region in each year since 1978 was:

  725

  Number

  1978

  101·0

  1979

  104·0

  1980

  108·0

  1981

  103·0

  1982

  90·0

  1983

  92·5

  1984

  88·0

  1985

  91·0

  1986

  88·0

  1987

  86·5

  1988

  79·5

  1989

  84·5

  1990

  90·5

  1991

  92·5

  1992

  89·5

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  (b) The information available for Health and Safety Executive agricultural inspectors in the Yorkshire and north-east region is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  18

  1986

  17

  1987

  18

  1988

  14

  1989

  16

  1990

  19

  1991

  22

  1992

  18

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available by these regions for earlier years because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (c) The information available for Health and Safety Executive doctors in the Yorkshire and north-east region is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  9·0

  1986

  9·5

  1987

  7·0

  1988

  6·0

  1989

  6·5

  1990

  8·5

  1991

  7·5

  1992

  8·5

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Comparable figures are not available by these regions for earlier years because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (d) The information available for HSE nurses in the Yorkshire and north-east region is:

  Number

  1985

  10

  1986

  12

  1987

  10

  1988

  10

  1989

  10

  1990

  9

  1991

  9

  1992

  8

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.
  726
  Comparable figures are not available by this region for earlier years because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  Mr. A. J. Linehan
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps were taken under the civil service rules relating to business appointments in connection with approval of the recruitment of Mr. A. J. Linehan by Higgs and Hill Safety Consultants.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Mr. Linehan did not apply to the executive under the normal civil service rules prior to this appointment as a non-executive director of Hinton and Higgs and the executive is in correspondence with him on the matter.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of ACAS during each year since its creation; and what is the expected cost in(a) 1992 and (b)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Cost £ million1

  (a) Historical costs

  21974–75

  1·3

  1975–76

  3·4

  1976–77

  8·0

  1977–78

  8·6

  1978–79

  9·4

  1979–80

  10·6

  1980–81

  11·8

  1981–82

  10·7

  1982–83

  11·7

  1983–84

  12·3

  1984–85

  12·6

  1985–86

  13·1

  1986–87

  14·4

  1987–88

  15·2

  1988–89

  15·9

  1989–90

  16·5

  1990–91

  17·7

  1991–92

  19·5

  (b) Estimated costs:

  1992–93

  21·7

  1 Total net costs of ACAS. Figures do not include the costs of the
  Certification Officer or of the Central Arbitration Committee.

  2 2 September 1974 to 31 March 1975.

  Figures for 1993–94 will be published in the Government's expenditure plans (Employment Department Group Report) early next year.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many conciliation officers have been employed by ACAS during each year since its creation; how many it employs now; and how many it expects to employ in 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am told by the chairman of ACAS that all higher executive officers (HEOs) employed by the service in its regional organisation are nominated as
  727
  conciliation officers under section 211(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, although not all are employed full-time on conciliation work. Records of the total number of HEOs employed are not available before 1983.

  Year

  Number of HEOs on operational work

  1983

  221

  1984

  216

  1985

  203

  1986

  204

  1987

  200

  1988

  190

  1989

  184

  1990

  185

  1991

  181

  1992

  191

  The figures given are calculated on the average number of HEOs in post over the first half of the calendar year in question. This year it is estimated that 92 per cent. of all HEO operational time is being employed on conciliation. This proportion is expected to be higher in 1993.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the role of ACAS has changed since its foundation; and what further changes are proposed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since its creation as an independent statutory body, by the Employment Protection Act 1975, there have been three main changes to the statutory role of ACAS. First, the provisions in the 1975 Act relating to ACAS's role in the determination of claims for trade union recognition were repealed by the Employment Act 1980. Secondly, ACAS's role in undertaking inquiries into questions concerning Wages Councils was ended by the Wages Act 1986. Thirdly, ACAS's role in seeking to promote the settlement of complaints without them having to be determined by an industrial tribunal has been extended by a variety of enactments.

  As to the future, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1 December, Official Report, columns 132–33, to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). If there are to be any further changes, they will be made after consultation with the ACAS Council.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of ACAS conciliation officers have portable telephones and word processors; and what plans there are to increase these provisions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am told by the chairman of ACAS that no portable telephones are in use by conciliation officers. Most conciliation officers have access to personal computers. Replacement of the service's current computing systems is scheduled for 1993.

  Training
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people resident in the Hyndburn constituency are engaged on employment training and employment action; and what proportion they represent of the total number of eligible people.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available. Information on the number of participants on 728
  employment training and employment action is riot collected centrally below training and enterprise council level.

  Pools Industry
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the pools industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is included in the estimates for sport and other recreational services, which do not separately identify the pools industry.

  In June 1992 (the latest date for which information is available) there were 343,000 employees in employment in sport and other recreational services in Great Britain.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to establish United Kingdom wide minimum standards for the provision of vocational training, including(a) maximum numbers of hours that trainees are allowed to work, (b) the proportion of time to be spent on off-the-job training, (c) the proportion of time to be spent on placement, (d) break entitlements, (e) holiday entitlement, (f) other paid or unpaid leave and (g) grievance and disciplinary procedures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines have been produced by her Department to training and enterprise councils concerning the inclusion of statements relating to(a) the quality of the training provision and (b) equal opportunity statements within their operating agreements.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Relations between training and enterprise councils and the Employment Department are governed by the TEC operating agreement. Under this agreement TECs are required to:Contract only with training providers that obtain and maintain approved training organisation status under criteria published by the Secretary of State or under criteria that are agreed to be at least equivalent; and to use all reasonable endeavours to ensure equality of opportunity in respect of all their activities and to pass on this obligation to their training providers.

  Each year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produces strategic guidance to support TECs in developing their plans. This sets out the strategic priorities that underpin the operating agreement. These cover help for those at a disadvantage in the labour market and the provision of high quality training.

  In addition, TECs have access to "Developing Good Practice" briefs on equal opportunities, managing quality and a wide range of other subjects.

  PA Consulting Group
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been paid to PA Consulting Group in respect of contracts undertaken to(a) establish the feasibility of privatising the electrical equipment certification service and (b) undertake a pay and grading review for the Health and Safety Executive.
  729
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive paid PA Consulting Group £87,400 in the financial year 1991–92 for a study of the future status of the electrical equipment certification service.

  The Health and Safety Executive appointed PA Consulting Group in March 1992 to assist in a review of pay and grading arrangements. A total of £79,400 has been paid to date.

  Both contracts were awarded following competitive tendering exercises.

  Hazard Ratings
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how occupational health factors are taken into account in determining the Health and Safety Executive's hazard rating system for the inspection of premises.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  When determining current health performance at inspection visits, to enable them to determine or review the inspection rating calculated, inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division (FOD) take into account the action taken by employers, owners and the self employed to both identify risks to health and to prevent or control the risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

  Field operations division is currently looking at new approaches to stimulate systematic collection of information on health risks further to refine the targeting of inspection visits planned on the basis of the rating system.

  Employment Service
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the Employment Service has made in the latest quarter in meeting targets outlined in the 1992–93 agency agreement; and if she will show for the latest possible date(a) the total unemployed job placings against profiled target, (b) the long-term unemployed job placings, (c) people with disabilities job placings, (d) inner-city job placings, (e) the employment training referral to the start ratio, (f) the number of new claims not pursued following initial contact and (g) the number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am informed by the chief executive of the Employment Service that in the period April to September 1992, the Employment Service placed a total of 729,000 unemployed people into jobs, against an annual target of 1·425 million. 24·3 per cent. of these placings were long-term claimants, 2·8 per cent. were people with disabilities and 34 per cent. were unemployed people in inner cities against annual targets of 19 per cent., 2·5 per cent. and 36 per cent. respectively. Over the same period the employment training/employment action referral to start ratio was 2·8:1 against an annual target of 2·5:1. New claims not pursued following initial contact were at the annual target level of 10 per cent. The number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators was 35,000 against an annual target of 58,000.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those unemployed in the Accrington and Rossendale travel-to-work area have been out of work for more than 12 months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Unemployment figures by duration are available only on a quarterly basis. In October 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, 25·1 per cent. of unemployed people in the Accrington and Rossendale travel-to-work-area had been unemployed for over 12 months.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list by county the number and percentage of long-term unemployed for each year since 1984; and if she will indicate the percentage increase or decrease for each county.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the areas of the south-east region which are considered as long-term unemployment black spots; and what actions she proposes to take to help these areas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is departmental policy to target assistance for the long term unemployed at individual people. In November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that next year help on Government employment and training programmes for unemployed people is being increased by nearly £500,000 to almost £1·5 million. New jobplan workshops will offer guidance and assessment for 300,000 people unemployed for a year or more.

  The successful job club and job interview guarantee schemes, including work trials, will both be expanded to provide an additional 180,000 places. Training for work will give training and enterprise councils greater flexibility to provide over 300,000 adults with opportunities to improve, update and learn new skills, or do work of benefit to the local community.

  Job Clubs
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs were operational in each region and for Great Britain as a whole at the latest available date and for each year since 1987; how many of them in each region catered for groups with special needs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. Cooper to Ms. Clare Short, dated 9 December 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question about the number of Jobclubs operational since 1987.
  Table 'A' attached shows the number of Jobclubs at the end of each operational year (end March) from 1986–87. The

  731
  number of Jobclubs at the end of 1986–87 is only available as a national total, but regional breakdowns are shown for subsequent years. The most recent figures (October 1992), are also given.
  Table 'B' shows the number of standard and specialist Jobclubs by region and nationally at the end of March 1992. Although specialist Jobclubs were introduced as pilots in previous years, this was the first year for which separate statistics were recorded. The most recent figures (September 1992), are also given.
  All Jobclubs help people who face particular difficulties in the labour market and most will have members who either have some degree of literacy or language problem, have a disability or have been in prison. Similarly, all Jobclubs are open to executives and managers. In response to the rise in unemployment at executive levels we have been opening some Jobclubs which focus particularly on that client group, though the activities and operations are very similar to the standard provision.
  For ex-offenders and people with disabilities, our policy is to integrate them into our standard provision wherever possible. The existence of a very small number of Jobclubs

  Table A

  Number of jobclubs by region

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  National

  March 1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  390

  March 1988

  90

  102

  111

  265

  75

  75

  144

  200

  142

  1,204

  March 1989

  95

  96

  111

  263

  77

  74

  146

  208

  140

  1,210

  March 1990

  78

  91

  90

  229

  57

  62

  108

  165

  130

  1,010

  March 1991

  76

  84

  80

  209

  57

  59

  100

  155

  123

  943

  March 1992

  100

  105

  118

  317

  77

  68

  144

  196

  138

  1,263

  October 1992

  100

  106

  110

  317

  85

  75

  143

  193

  139

  1,268

  Table B

  Number of specialist jobclubs by region

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  National

  March 1992

  Standard

  89

  86

  86

  236

  62

  65

  118

  171

  120

  1,033

  Supportive

  3

  11

  14

  36

  3

  1

  12

  10

  9

  99

  Executive

  5

  4

  16

  37

  11

  2

  9

  12

  9

  105

  People with disabilities

  1

  1

  1

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  8

  Ex offenders

  2

  3

  1

  5

  1

  0

  3

  3

  0

  18

  September 1992

  Standard

  88

  85

  86

  242

  67

  67

  118

  165

  118

  1,036

  Supportive

  3

  13

  9

  35

  3

  1

  8

  9

  11

  92

  Executive

  7

  5

  16

  38

  13

  7

  9

  15

  9

  119

  People with disabilities

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  11

  Ex offenders

  1

  2

  1

  5

  1

  0

  3

  4

  0

  17

  Market Testing
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to which of those of her Department's activities due to be market-tested by 30 September 1993 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive 77/189/EEC will apply to an individual case depends on the facts of the
  732
  targeted specifically at such clients is aimed at developing our expertise which can help improve provision over the whole network.
  Supportive Jobclubs provide additional help to people with more severe problems who cannot cope in the standard provision. They are proving a useful way of extending the range of people Jobclubs can help, especially in terms of literacy or language, or people with a severe lack of confidence who have been unemployed for a long time.
  In her statement to the House on 12 November 1992, the Secretary of State indicated, amongst other things, that there will be a further expansion of Jobclubs in 1993–94. We expect to target part of the expansion towards supportive Jobclubs. An evaluation of this provision is nearing completion and we shall want to consider the findings before deciding on the balance between the standard and supportive approaches.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  case; and there are a number of tests to be applied. For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking is actually being transferred.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a timetable showing when he plans to market-test those activities listed for testing before 30 September 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The citizens charter White Paper, "The Citizen's Charter: First Report 1992" (Cm. 2101), shows the main activities which are included in the Employment Department market-testing programme up to 30 September 1993.

  Planning is well under way.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
Lord Newton Lord Newton —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Viscount Cowdray Viscount Cowdray —Took the Oath.

Human Rights and Bilateral Aid
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
In what ways they encourage governments in receipt of bilateral aid from the United Kingdom to observe human rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, good government is an important condition for sustainable development. We take fully into account recipients' performance over time on human rights before deciding aid applications. We support projects to help developing countries raise their standards of government, including the observance of human rights.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she recollect that on 12th November my noble friend Lord Judd asked in relation to Indonesia whether we were using the threat of withdrawing aid or were just making polite representations, and that she replied: "My Lords, indeed we are"? Can she elaborate a little on that answer; and can she say specifically in relation to Indonesia how many more political murders, what degree of torture and what further evidence of genocide would be required before the human rights situation is reflected in decisions about aid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I realise that my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on that occasion was rather short. Let me assure your Lordships that we have ensured that the Indonesian Government are fully aware of our views on the human rights situation, not only in East Timor but also in general terms. We shall continue to use every available opportunity to make our concern clear to the Indonesians. I believe that there have been some improvements over recent years, but by no means enough. We shall continue to work with friends and partners to influence the Indonesian authorities and to make sure that they realise that no torture is acceptable, no genocide is acceptable and that none of the reports that we have been reading should ever have any foundation, although we believe that some may be exaggerated.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us would warmly welcome her reference to taking every opportunity, but does she accept that during the past year Britain has now become the
180
largest arms supplier to Indonesia? Does not the question of approval for arms exports arise? Is it not appalling that at a time when the Government are apparently using their influence we are gaining from arms supplies to Indonesia when, as she has herself admitted, torture is continuing in that country, which is in any case occupied by Indonesia illegally?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I did not admit that there is torture. I could not do so because I do not have correct information any more than anyone else has. I also believe that some newspaper reports have been exaggerated, but I do not say that they all have. So far as concerns military expenditure, let me say this. Every nation is entitled to defend itself but we do not export arms to a country where we believe they will be used for internal repression.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not understand that there is a problem of credibility on this issue? We do not doubt her sincerity of intention, but how does she use the aid programme to bring effective pressure to bear? In Indonesia 2,000 political prisoners are languishing in prison for their religious and political beliefs. Some have been there under sentence of death since 1965. How has she used the aid programme to bring pressure to bear to bring justice to those people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has taken every opportunity he has had to make quite clear to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia our complete rejection of the way in which they have dealt with political opponents in Indonesia, be it in East Timor or anywhere else. The Indonesian action against the military personnel involved in the Dili incident was unprecedented. We have made it absolutely clear that all those issues must be dealt with by the Indonesian authorities and we shall continue to do so at every level of government.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please explain what she means when she says that she assesses the human rights record of a country when deciding what the aid programme should be?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one has to consider whether there has been any improvement, no improvement or a worsening of the situation. While I fully accept that noble Lords, together with many of my noble friends on this side of the House, believe that the situation is still very grave, it is somewhat better than it has been. We continue on every occasion—in consultative groups and all the multilateral agencies, as well as on our own account bilaterally—to make quite clear that if that improvement does not continue and if people who are held without trial are not released there will need to be a change.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, British aid is important, but does the Minister recognise that the pressures on governments receiving aid would be much more significant if the views she expresses were shared by some of our European allies? May I have an assurance that when pressure is brought to bear on

181
some of those countries it can be done with other donors in the European Community who make a much larger contribution to aid than we do?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Britain was the fifth largest bilateral aid donor in 1991. But the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that combined pressure from all donors, not limited solely to the European Community but other major donors too, is just as important. Indeed, we promoted a resolution in the European Development Council over a year ago urging that every country in the Community should take such steps. Our partners in the OECD Donor Assistance Committee have taken similar steps.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it too much to hope or dream that governments who are responsible for breaches of human rights will be brought before a world court?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not know about a world court. I know that there is a good deal more honesty in 1992 about what is going on in terms of breaches of human rights than there was even five years ago. All donors are quite determined that people should be brought before the law and—what is always asked for—if a government of a sovereign country arrests somebody, that that person must be charged and brought before their own courts. If that is not done, further steps must be considered by the United Nations.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, the terms of the original Question go much wider than Indonesia. Will my noble friend confirm that her policy and the policy of other aid donors are having practical effect in some parts of Africa, particularly in Malawi?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. We have begun to see a change in the attitude of many countries. The very fact that the Government of Malawi are to hold a referendum on their one-party system is an indication that they, like others in Africa, see the need to address human rights issues and to address the whole issue of democracy and good government. We are giving good support for those who follow a policy of democracy and good government.

Tobacco Advertising
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the recently published findings of the Department of Health research into advertising and tobacco, they will implement an immediate ban on all tobacco advertising.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government continue to believe that the voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry represent the best way to control tobacco advertising
182
and promotion. The Department of Health discussion document on the effect of tobacco advertising is a useful contribution to the literature, and we have invited comments on it before 29th January 1993.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Department of Health study shows that in those countries where an advertising ban has been implemented, consumption has fallen by what the report describes as a significant degree for reasons which cannot be attributed to other causes? Given that the Government have established very ambitious targets for their Health of the Nation policy in reducing tobacco consumption in this country, are they not in danger of shooting themselves, perhaps not in the foot but in the lung?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we feel that controls on tobacco advertising have a part to play. However, we believe that voluntary controls are the best way forward. I do not accept that the evidence from other countries is quite as conclusive as the noble Baroness seems to suggest. One might think that merely because Norway, Finland and Canada have imposed bans they have seen reductions. One forgets that they started from a much lower level of restriction on advertising. We have had restrictions through our voluntary code on advertising for some 25 years. Through those restrictions and from other causes we saw smoking decline from about 45 per cent. in 1974 to around 30 per cent. in 1990. We hope that the decline will continue but I do not think it is necessarily the case that a compulsory ban on advertising will take us much further.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does that answer mean that my noble friend feels satisfied with the reduction in tobacco smoking? Is he aware that a great many young people can be seen on the streets using tobacco? Does he agree that advertising plays a part in encouraging them to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I accept that it plays a part. We have tried to get advertising reduced. My noble friend knows that the target in the Health of the Nation White Paper is to get smoking down some 20 per cent. by the year 2000. But there are other means of reducing tobacco smoking than by imposing a compulsory ban on advertising. We have a commitment to maintain, at the very least, the level of taxes as they are now. That commitment is unprecedented in taxation terms. We shall continue to advertise and promote health awareness in regard to smoking and obviously we shall maintain the existing voluntary controls.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, while the Minister rightly explains the problem in relation to tobacco advertising, can he give the House any indication at all as to the contribution which the British taxpayer makes towards EC subsidies designed directly and specifically to make tobacco production cheaper and, therefore, the consumption of it wider? Does he not believe that that is a difficult issue to defend?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not in a position of having to defend it. That is another question. I can confirm that we shall continue to campaign to reduce the subsidies to the CAP tobacco regime. We have consistently criticised that regime and will continue to do so.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people should have the right and freedom to enjoy smoking tobacco? Is he aware also that a ban on tobacco advertising would also be a denial of commercial free speech? The paper to which the Minister refers is a consultative document and not an official report. Is he further aware that the Department of Health has received a research paper which shows that in the OECD countries where advertising has been banned, tobacco consumption per adult has also increased?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be the first to agree with the noble Lord that we should have the right to smoke tobacco if we so wish. As to whether we should go further towards a compulsory ban on tobacco advertising, I agree with the noble Lord that one should beware of legislating to deny advertisers their natural liberty to advertise what is at present a legal product without firm evidence that such a ban would have concrete results. One should remember that we have seen considerable progress with a voluntary ban.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that taxation on tobacco is so high in this country that a British pack of 20 cigarettes is much more costly here than it is in any other country, with the possible exception of Denmark? That means that a person who takes a 40-foot lorry loaded with cigarettes and drives it from France to England will make a profit on that one load of £460,000. Is it not highly undesirable to encourage such a trend? Is my noble friend aware that on that one trip the Revenue would suffer a loss of £750,000 in taxes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only reiterate the commitment that I have given that, at the very least, we intend to maintain the real level of taxation on tobacco.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question of freedom is quite irrelevant? My noble friend Lady Jay is not seeking to stop people from smoking. People are quite free to smoke. She is attempting to discourage people from smoking. The basic facts are that smoking kills and advertising increases the level of smoking. What are we waiting for?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that the question of freedom is quite irrelevant. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, the right to smoke tobacco is a legal right which we are not trying to deny. At the same time there is a legal right for people to advertise products which can be sold legally. The Government will continue to advise people not to
184
smoke because of the dangers involved, but we do not believe that there is any conclusive evidence that we should bring in a compulsory ban on advertising.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as a former smoker I take the point about human rights made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason. However, does the Minister agree that there is substantial medical evidence to indicate that smoking is one of the greatest health hazards of the age and that the evidence from Canada and the Scandinavian countries is that their bans on advertising have been particularly valid in reducing the level of smoking by young people at whom many of the advertisements are targeted? Finally, does the Minister agree that the major medical organisations in this country are uniformly in favour of a ban on tobacco advertising?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord when he speaks of the evils and dangers of smoking. In no way was I seeking to imply that smoking is anything other than a potentially dangerous activity. I was trying to say that the evidence as regards tobacco advertising, and as to whether a compulsory ban would be effective, is not as conclusive as the noble Lord maintains. The restrictions imposed in Norway, Finland and Canada were imposed from a much lower level of restrictions beforehand.
We already have considerable restrictions on advertising. It would be wrong for the noble Lord to interpret the evidence as implying that an immediate ban would bring the results which he believes would arise. Nevertheless, if evidence can be brought forward to show that a ban would assist in that cause then, as I tried to imply when speaking of the liberty to advertise, it might be the time to consider imposing more restrictive controls on tobacco advertising.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that this is a consultative document? Is it not unfortunate that those who are in favour of a ban on tobacco advertising should wish to silence the voices on the other side? Will the noble Lord confirm also that in Italy and Portugal, where bans have been in force since 1977, tobacco consumption has increased by 8 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot confirm the noble Lord's figures as regards Italy and Portugal. I can confirm that their record on reducing tobacco consumption is less good than our record in spite of their total ban on tobacco advertising. As regards the other part of the noble Lord's question, he is right that it is a consultative document and we await his comments before January 1993.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think my noble friend should ask his question next, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, some years ago I had responsibility for drawing up one of the voluntary agreements. The facts then showed that advertising did not increase the level of smoking but merely caused people to change brands. Is that still the case?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. Some would argue that that is the case while others would argue that advertising of tobacco increases the level of smoking among certain categories. It is difficult to reach a definite conclusion on this matter.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, should we assume that the Minister is saying that he does not accept the result of the research carried out by his department? More relevantly, are the Government influenced in any way by the fact that Imperial Tobacco gave 2,000 poster sites to the Conservative Party during the last election campaign? Is there any influence there?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I refute totally what the noble Lord says. As regards the first part of his question, the noble Lord is guilty of somewhat over-interpreting the evidence put forward in the discussion document.

School Uniform
2.58 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to encourage the wearing of uniforms in schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the final decision as to whether to adopt a school uniform must remain one for the governors of each school.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Minister agree that not only can school uniforms help to disguise differences in background among pupils but they are also conducive to good learning and conduct? A school which adopts a uniform as part of a new approach sends a most important signal to both parents and pupils that it attaches a high value to such matters.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no difficulty whatever in agreeing with my noble friend. Many people believe, as I do, that school uniform can help to develop a sense of community on which good behaviour and high standards depend. Noble Lords may remember that my noble friend Lord Elton produced a report which suggested that an emphasis on the value of wearing uniform was one way to help pupils to identify with their school.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said. However, does the Minister not agree that in some cases families have difficulty in finding the money for a uniform? In those circumstances what does the Minister suggest? I expect that she will tell me that that is a matter for local education authorities, but she knows that at present education expenditure is very restricted. What does the Minister recommend to parents who cannot afford uniforms?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, many local education authorities have a hardship fund. As a parent of
186
children I should say that it is a far more cost-effective option to put children in uniform than it is to compete with day to day fashion.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if there is social value in uniforms and if uniforms are required, they should always be affordable, practical and widely available so that parents are not forced to go to a particular supplier, which can distort the prices that they are expected to pay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I go in and out of schools on a frequent basis and I know that many are adopting such an approach to uniform. They are adopting simple uniforms, often based on colour, but with rigorous application to wearing that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the wearing of uniforms may reduce the incidence of stealing, which can be a problem in many schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be scientific in my answer to that question but I agree with the general proposition. It is true that the wearing of uniforms has many benefits.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that those who complain most loudly about the cost of uniforms rarely blink an eyelid at spending £70 on a pair of child's trainers and other fashionable clothes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes the point for me; that is true. Many parents heave a great sigh of relief when they learn that a school has adopted a uniform. The other serious point to make is that a good governing body will consult with the parents about a policy for uniforms.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as the Government have standardised all other aspects of life in schools so that they all teach the same subjects for the same amount of time, can we not at least allow children to show their individuality in the clothing that they wear?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I made it absolutely clear in my first answer to the Question that the matter is for local determination by the governing body of a school in consultation with the parents. That decision should be made at a local level. We have made it clear that we have no plans to predetermine at a national level what children should wear.

Teachers: Subject Shortages
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to increase the supply of teachers of modern languages, mathematics, science and music.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have already taken action to increase the supply of teachers, especially in those secondary subjects which have traditionally presented the most severe recruitment

187
difficulties. I am delighted to say that there are few vacancies in primary and secondary schools in any subject.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in spite of that Answer does the Minister agree that there are persistent shortages in the subjects that I have listed on the Order Paper? Has any research been carried out into the causes of those shortages because we should know more about the situation? Furthermore, what consultations have taken place with the teachers' unions about the problem, particularly as it affects the national curriculum?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree with the premise upon which the noble Lord based his remarks; there are not persistent shortages in those subjects. According to the latest count, there is only a 0.5 per cent. vacancy rate. Out of 400,000 teachers there are only 43 vacancies in music, 77 in maths, 85 in science and 176 in modern foreign languages.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those figures will be widely welcomed? To what extent have those improvements been brought about by the introduction of articled and licensed teachers in the teeth of opposition from the teachers' unions? Furthermore, if a problem does arise, will she consider paying more to those teachers in the subjects of shortage?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that opening up the routes into teaching has brought into the classroom more teachers with an expertise. Therefore, the articled and licensed teaching routes have helped. In addition, there has been the setting up of the unit of Teaching as a Career and the bursary schemes which involve paying more money to those who come into teaching to teach the shortage subjects. The tax-free bursaries for those shortage subjects have also brought about an improvement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, what use, if any, has been made of the considerable number of older people, many of whom are nationals of other countries such as Germany and Austria, and who are active in what is known as the University of the Third Age? Undoubtedly they could help with conversation classes, which is one of the most important aspects of language teaching. Has that source been adequately tapped?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. It is open to the school and its policy to recruit language assistants from wherever. If they are available in an area, whether or not they are of the Third Age, that is a good policy to follow.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if there is no great shortage of teachers, when do the Government intend to begin teaching modern languages at the primary stage in common with most of our European partners whom we lag behind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it remains government policy to teach languages to pupils at a younger age. However, there are two serious problems, one of which is logistical. Until the national curriculum
188
compulsory language teaching from the age of 11 is fed into the system we shall not have a cohort of young people leaving school at 16, 17 or 18 from which our new teacher recruits will come. The second problem is the finance to support that. That is our aim but, in the meantime, we hope that where a primary school has the expertise to teach a language it will do so.
Lord Judd: My Lords, has the Minister been able to study the tables prepared by her department which will form part of the 1992 secondary schools staffing survey? Does she agree that they reveal that 10 per cent. of maths teachers have no academic qualifications in maths; 9 per cent. of French teachers have none in French; 13 per cent. of German teachers have none in German—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Judd: That 9 per cent. of general science teachers have no academic qualifications in general science? Indeed, overall almost one teacher in five has no professional academic qualifications in the subject which he is teaching. How can that he satisfactory? What will the Minister do about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord's question precisely. He is referring to teachers with no qualifications for teaching those subjects. Perhaps I can put it another way: 95 per cent. of people teach music as a primary subject; 90 per cent. maths; 96 per cent. Physics—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, 97 per cent. chemistry; 89 per cent. biology; 91 per cent. French; and 87 per cent. German. I believe that that is a very good record.

Business
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. a Statement will be repeated in this House which is to be made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. In view of the constitutional importance of the Statement, and with the agreement of the Leaders of the other parties and of the Convener of the Cross-Benchers, I have asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to repeat the Statement on my behalf.

Hong Kong and China
3.8 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes rose to call attention to the situation in Hong Kong and China; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving my Motion I am sure that we are all delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, has chosen today's debate to open his account in your Lordships' House. As the most immediate past Governor of Hong Kong he will be listened to with great attention, as will his predecessor but one, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch.
We are also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, for finding time to speak in today's debate. It is indeed sad that the other two Hong Kong resident Members of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, and my noble friend Lord Cromer —are unable to be with us. The noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, is unable to be here on medical grounds and my noble friend Lord Cromer has last-minute business reasons.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, I have one overriding objective in the debate; it is to do what is right and best for the people of Hong Kong both before and after 30th June 1997. The present unhappy relations between Hong Kong and Beijing give considerable cause for concern, but I suggest that it would be a mistake to concentrate only on that present situation.
It was entirely deliberate to include China as well as Hong Kong in the title of today's debate. It is no longer realistic or even possible to consider one without the other. Hong Kong and China, particularly southern China, are now interdependent to such a degree that economically they should already be viewed as one entity.
Much has been made in recent days about the volatility in the Hang Seng Index. I am sure that those who know Hong Kong, particularly its stock market, will agree that it is probably the most emotive market in the world. For the record, the Hang Seng dropped 18 per cent. in the past four weeks, but that was from an all-time high on 12th November. It is still 423 per cent. higher than in September 1984 when the Joint Declaration was signed; 98 per cent. higher than the day before the Tiananmen Square incident; 153 per cent. higher than the day after Tiananmen Square and 27 per cent. higher than a year ago. As in every society or political system the economy is the heart of the matter, the fulcrum, the driving force. The Asia-Pacific area is undoubtedly the fastest growing in the world and Hong Kong is still very much at its centre.
In 1991 nearly one-third of all Hong Kong's trade was with China. Around 85 per cent. of Hong Kong's re-exports either originate from or are destined for China. In the first nine months of this year, Hong Kong's domestic exports to China rose by 16 per cent. In Guangdong, the province nearest to Hong Kong and where there are three special economic zones, some 3 million people are employed by Hong Kong businesses in 25,000 enterprises. Directly or indirectly, Hong Kong is said to be responsible for up to 90 per cent. of the investment in Guangdong, which itself has a population of 80 million. Nor is it all one-way traffic. Hong Kong and China are now each other's largest trading partners. China invests heavily in Hong Kong's manufacturing industry. Mainland Chinese interests already own around 5 per cent. of all the real estate in Hong Kong and 70 per cent. of all purchase and sales agreements filed with the Hong Kong Land Office this year have been with China. Without even allowing for acceleration of that trend, China will own 20 per cent. of Hong Kong by June 1997.
The businessmen of Hong Kong have not waited for 1997. With the ingenuity and economic astuteness
190
for which they are justly famous they have looked into the future and acted accordingly. To them, 1997 represents opportunity as well as a step into the unknown. They have not been slow to seize the former in an attempt to mitigate the latter. It must not be forgotten that 98 per cent. of the population of Hong Kong is Chinese—a people with a strong sense of cultural unity and desire to preserve their ancient civilisation. Even in Taiwan, the 1991 elections demonstrated the electorate's overwhelming rejection of the concept of total independence and divorce from mainland China.
Above all, the Chinese are prepared to be endlessly flexible and utterly pragmatic in their approach to achieve their objectives. The concept of "one country, two systems" is, if nothing else, ingenious! The way in which China's economic structure has advanced during the past 13 years, when the modernisation programme started, is further proof of the Chinese versatility and willingness to adapt circumstances to their needs.
Two months ago I had the real pleasure and privilege of accompanying the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, on a visit to China—a follow-up to the one he and I made in April of this year to Fujien and Guangdong Provinces. Our most recent visit was to Wuhan in Hubei Province, 1,000 kilometres north of Hong Kong and to Shanghai. Both in their different ways were equally fascinating and impressive. Wuhan stands at the crossroads of the Yangtze River flowing west to east and the north-south railway, and as such could become a huge inland container entrepot for goods destined to and from Kowloon via the new double track north-south railway presently under construction.
We received most interesting general briefings from the Hubei planning authorities, together with a visit to the Wuhan Iron and Steel Company, itself occupying a site of 10 square kilometres, and a specific briefing with regard to the planned Three Gorges Dam. That dam is truly mind boggling in its conception. If built, it will take 18 years to complete; it will require 20 million tonnes of cement and will eventually produce 84 gigawatts of electricity per annum.
To me, Wuhan was also interesting in that it is in the same state and position as Guangzhou was 15 years ago; that is, ready, able and extremely willing to embark on a period of major expansion. Shanghai was, in a different way, equally fascinating. The historical city is sprouting high rise buildings at an incredible rate. But the biggest and most impressive expansion is in the area of Pudong, south of the Wangpo River, where the authorities have embarked on a 30-year programme to develop 350 square kilometres of land to be turned into, "the financial and economic centre in the Asia area". That development, including construction of a second international airport and a sea port, will be divided into four zones specifically designed for free trade, export processing, finance and high technology. As with, but different from, the projects in Wuhan and Hubei Province, the Pudong development is a truly gigantic one, and again the Chinese seem to have got it right in insisting on years of concentration on infrastructure before

191
opening up the development to investors. In both Wuhan and Shanghai, the majority of foreign investment which is "pouring" in comes from Hong Kong.
Deng Xiaoping defined China's economic policy as "socialism with Chinese characteristics", which amounts to free market capitalism with a highly centralised political system: to the western way of thinking, those are concepts which are mutually exclusive. However, Mr. Deng continues to urge on a programme of deregulation and a free market. It is not without interest that economic reformers dominated the appointments to the Communist party's Politburo and Standing Committee at the 14th Party Congress in October.
China's economy has doubled in size since economic liberalisation began in 1978 and could well double again by the year 2000. Despite chronic losses in the state-owned sector, China's GNP for the first three quarters of 1992 was up by 10.6 per cent. over the same period last year and projections for China's economic growth during this year were revised upwards from 6 per cent. to 10 per cent. by the Beijing Government in July. Over the past 13 years China has averaged an annual growth of 9 per cent., which is something they intend to maintain at least until the end of the decade. In 1990 official stock markets were established in Shanghai and Shenzhen. Although there is a risk of the economy overheating and inflation, few can argue that China's economic achievements are little short of miraculous.
China's pragmatism extends to the loosening of controls in order to achieve her aims; the system allows just so much liberty and personal prosperity as is necessary, although Tiananmen Square was more than a sharp reminder of how the state can flex its military muscles and exercise political control if provoked. It is tempting to compare China with the former Soviet Union and to forecast that political liberalisation will be the inevitable result of the economic progress. However, I suggest that the Chinese have learned well from their neighbours and that economic reform must come a very long way first.
So, where does that leave Hong Kong? The trite answer of course is on the front page of virtually every newspaper every day; not necessarily an ideal position or situation, particularly for Hong Kong which basically just wants to be left alone to get on with what it knows best, and that is to make money. The present bout of decibel diplomacy is deafening, dangerous and potentially destructive. It is doing no one any good at all; not Beijing, not London and certainly not Hong Kong. At the end of the day, what is that decibel diplomacy all about? Apparently, it is about democracy with an important sideline as to whether Westminster intends to abscond with Hong Kong's silver—perhaps I should say jade—before the handover.
I have not a shadow of doubt that the latter is neither true nor a practical possibility. As to the former, democracy, I wonder whether that is not more a symptom than a cause. The real reason seems to be that of trust. The background for what became the 1984 Joint Declaration and the 1990 Basic Law was
192
lack of assurance that Beijing would stick to its word and allow Hong Kong to continue with its previous way of life for at least 50 years after 1997. I suggest that the Governor's present proposals—and they are only proposals, which can be amended or, indeed, overturned by the Hong Kong Legislative Council —are a natural extension of that unease and therefore an endeavour to strengthen the democratic safety net. Beijing, in turn, is increasingly distrustful of the motives behind such constitutional reform and indeed its possible implications for the rest of China. In my view, it is a classic situation of each side becoming more and more convinced that only its view is right.
I suggest that were it not for the fear that Beijing might not honour its agreements of 1984 and 1990, the vast majority of the people of Hong Kong would be happy to get on with their business provided—this is a most important proviso—they were absolutely certain that the status quo of an independent judiciary, free speech, free assembly, a free press and freedom to travel, would remain. Given such absolute certainty, the pressure for democracy (itself an occidental concept) would surely be greatly reduced. To achieve that will require a positive rather than a negative move from Beijing and an immediate—I stress, immediate—corresponding positive reaction from Hong Kong.
I most genuinely congratulate Mr. Christopher Patten, the present Governor of Hong Kong, on his sincerity. I have no doubt that he totally believes that the proposals outlined in his remarkable speech of 7th October are entirely within the strict written terms of the Basic Law. His coolness under fire in recent weeks does him enormous credit and I greatly honour such courage. However, what he has done is to bring very much an occidental mind and a Westminster approach to what is an almost entirely oriental situation where "face" and "principle" assume proportions which, if not unknown at Westminster, are of far less consequence there in the hurly-burly of daily political life.
I am reminded of a simple story told many years ago by an eminent Member of your Lordships' House regarding different interpretations of identical words. The story, as I recall it, was of two bachelor girls, one living in New York and one in London, who said, simultaneously, "I'm just wild about my flat". Of course, we know that the New Yorker was singularly unamused at having had a puncture in her car whereas her opposite number in London was ecstatic about her new home.
I do not believe that the present "difficulties" in Hong Kong, which amount to different interpretations of the same words, are as great as is being made out. As the Sunday Times said three days ago:
"Patten's proposals for an extension of Hong Kong's limited democracy in the proposed elections for 1995 may have been modest: it was the manner in which they were announced as much as the content that infuriated Peking and prompted a wave of hostility that frayed the fragile nerves of Hong Kong's investors".
The 18th century philosopher, Kant, said that,
"the mode of government is incomparably more important for a nation than the form of state".
The framework for a mode of government which will serve Hong Kong and its people well beyond 1997 is

193
there in writing in the 1984 Joint Declaration (an internationally recognised agreement) and the 1990 Basic Law. What is absolutely vital is that both sides should lay down their loud hailers and start listening to each other again in the tried and tested forum of quiet discussion. In that context, this week's meeting of the Joint Liaison Group is encouraging. The route of quiet discussion may well not suit the media but its co-operation is, if not vital, then certainly an important ingredient.
I most earnestly urge both Governments to build on the solid foundations laid down in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. And I also encourage them—London, Beijing and Hong Kong—to take to heart the words of the late Mr. Chou En-lai that we should,
"set aside differences and concentrate on points we have in common".
In the interests of the future lives and prosperity of the people of Hong Kong well beyond 1997, I do most earnestly advocate that sentiment. If it needs an honest broker to bring the parties together, I am sure that there are many who, believing and caring for Hong Kong's future, could and would, jointly or severally, fulfil that role. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Geddes for initiating this debate on one of the most important foreign policy issues facing this country. We look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn; and we are delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, with us today. I thank her for making the effort to be here; I know that it was not easy. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon returned from China just yesterday. He very much wanted to be here, but he has asked me to say how sorry he is that he cannot be here. The reason—as I am sure noble Lords would wish to know—is that he is being granted the Freedom of the Borough of Port Talbot this afternoon.
China is by any measure a significant country, as my noble friend Lord Geddes has said. Its significance is increasing. In the 200 years since Lord Macartney's mission, successive British governments have consistently recognised the importance of establishing good relations with successive governments in Peking.
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 some periods have been marked more by mutual suspicion than by constructive dialogue. However, the Chinese leadership's decision in 1978, under the inspiration of Mr. Deng Xiaoping, to concentrate on economic reform and opening to the outside world introduced a long period when Sino-British relations flowered to an unprecedented degree. There are many reasons why Britain and China must maintain and develop a constructive and broadly based relationship. China is by far the world's most populous country. It is a member of the Permanent Five in the United Nations. It is a nuclear power. It is a major exporter of military equipment.
194
As my noble friend has just told us, its economic growth rates in recent years, based on the "reform and opening" policies of Deng Xiaoping, have been among the fastest in the world. Southern China in particular is now regarded as the fifth "Tiger" of the Asia-Pacific rim. In short, China must be taken very seriously. This Government have done so consistently.
If your Lordships wish, I shall deal with other aspects of our relations with China, such as the important matter of human rights, at the conclusion of this debate. But it is over Hong Kong where Britain and China have the clearest interest in co-operation. I should now like to concentrate on that co-operation.
Hong Kong is making its own significant contribution to China's economic growth. Hong Kong firms employ some 3 million people in Guangdong Province alone. Hong Kong is a major source of investment, of foreign exchange, of marketing skills and of technical know-how for China. Hong Kong also benefits greatly from its economic links to southern China. This has helped to protect Hong Kong from the recession elsewhere in the world. Hong Kong's growth rate is expected to be some 5 per cent. each year until 1997.
This enviable economic success owes much to the political certainty provided by the Joint Declaration in 1984. It shows what can be achieved through Sino-British co-operation. Like other noble Lords, I have seen some suggestions in recent days from Chinese spokesmen which seem to call into question the value of the Joint Declaration. Let me be absolutely clear: the British Government remain 100 per cent. committed to the full implementation of the Joint Declaration. We want to work closely with the Chinese Government to ensure a smooth transition in Hong Kong. There has been no change whatever in that policy.
The Governor's proposals for a modest extension of democracy fit squarely into the pattern of gradual evolution laid down in the Joint Declaration under which the Legislative Council will evolve from the all-appointed body of 1984 to one "constituted by elections" by 1997. Britain has the responsibility for administering the next cycle of elections in Hong Kong in 1994 and 1995. We would like to see as much continuity as possible through 1997. But we also need to respond to the clear wish of Hong Kong people to have a greater say in the running of their affairs.
We still believe that the simplest way of responding to this wish would be to agree with the Chinese Government an amendment to the Basic Law to allow an increase in the number of directly elected members of the Legislative Council beyond the 20 now envisaged. But the Chinese Government have made plain that they will not change the Basic Law. Taking account of that position, the Governor has put forward a parallel approach which would enhance democracy within the terms of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
The Governor's proposals were worked out in close co-ordination with the British Government. They enjoy the Government's full support. They pose no threat to anyone. Hong Kong is a mature and sophisticated society. Meeting the wishes of its people

195
for a small step forward in democratic participation could not conceivably put at risk Hong Kong's prosperity and stability.
It is not the Governor's proposals which have unsettled the markets in recent weeks and alarmed people in Hong Kong. It is China's increasingly strident propaganda attacks that have done that. The sooner the megaphones are put away, the better—how right my noble friend was. It is very much in Hong Kong's interest that Britain and China should resume calm discussion of these issues and the British Government are ready to do so at any time.
Let me emphasise that this is not an argument of our making. The Basic Law does not lay down the detailed electoral arrangements for the Legislative Council which will make the transition in 1997. So the Governor had to make proposals. But they are just that—proposals. Since the Chinese evidently disagree with them, the most constructive course would be for them to come forward with alternatives of their own. The Governor has also emphasised that he is ready to consider alternative proposals from individuals or groups in Hong Kong. He—and we—are totally sincere in this. Our only condition is that elections held under British rule should be open, fair and command the support of the people of Hong Kong.
A number of alternative proposals have already been suggested. More may come forward in the next few weeks. But the time for discussion is limited. For practical reasons, it will be necessary to put draft legislation to the Legislative Council in the early part of next year. Otherwise, arrangements may not be in place in time for the district board elections in 1994.
It is entirely right that the Legislative Council should have the final say on the electoral arrangements, having weighed up all the factors. I do not think that your Lordships would want the Governor or this Government to press the Legislative Council to go further than they judge right in the interests of Hong Kong. On the other hand, it would clearly be wrong for us to say that we would not be prepared to go as far as the Legislative Council would wish.
There really is no contradiction between a more representative system of government and continuing economic success. Indeed Hong Kong's way of life, including its open society underpinned by the rule of law, has been crucial to that success. Building up strong and self-confident local institutions before 1997 should therefore help to create the conditions in which business can continue to flourish in Hong Kong. Her Majesty's Government remain firmly committed to ensuring the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
Britain and China have come a long way together in the implementation of the Joint Declaration's promise of "one country two systems". As 1997 draws nearer there is a need for even closer co-operation. All concerned will benefit from that: Britain, China and most of all the people of Hong Kong. We seek renewed dialogue with China, with the aim of narrowing differences and restoring a co-operative relationship. That is the best basis for Hong Kong's prosperity and stability.

The Prince and Princess of Wales
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Buckingham Palace are at this moment issuing the following Statement. It reads as follows:
"It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, The Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. Their Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce and their constitutional positions are unaffected. This decision has been reached amicably, and they will both continue to participate fully in the upbringing of their children.
"Their Royal Highnesses will continue to carry out full and separate programmes of public engagements, and will from time to time attend family occasions and national events together.
"The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathise with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness particularly hope that the intrusions into the privacy of The Prince and Princess may now cease. They believe that a degree of privacy and understanding is essential if Their Royal Highnesses are to provide a happy and secure upbringing for their children, while continuing to give a whole-hearted commitment to their public duties".
My Lords, that is the text of the announcement.
The Prime Minister's Statement goes on:
"I am sure that I speak for the whole House—and millions beyond it—in offering our support to both the Prince and Princess of Wales. I am also sure that the House will sympathise with the wish that they should both be afforded a degree of privacy.
"The House will wish to know that the decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the Throne is unaffected by it; the children of the Prince and Princess retain their position in the line of succession; and there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course. The Prince of Wales' succession as head of the Church of England is also unaffected. Neither the Prince nor the Princess is supported by the Civil List, and this position will remain unchanged.
"Madam Speaker, I know that there will be great sadness at this news. But I know also that, as they continue with their Royal duties and with the upbringing of their children, the Prince and Princess will have the full support, understanding and affection of this House and of the country."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned the Lord Chancellor for having repeated the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We are grateful, too, for the noble and learned Lord's statement as to the constitutional position.
The House will have heard the Statement with regret and with sadness, which we on these Benches fully share. However, it is essentially a matter for the two people most directly concerned. One cannot help wondering, however, whether such difficulties as there were between the Prince and the Princess might perhaps have been more capable of resolution had the tabloid press not taken such an excessive interest in their personal affairs.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: And The Sunday Times.
Lord Richard: But these are perhaps matters for another occasion. I am sure the House would wish to be restrained in its comments today.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement. Beyond expressing our sympathy with those involved at the circumstances which have occasioned the Statement and endorsing the plea for privacy in the future, I do not think that any precipitate comment would be helpful or appropriate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken for their understanding of this position.
3.42 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury would wish to have been here today; but, as your Lordships know, he is in Sri Lanka. We have consulted together and I wish to speak on behalf of us both. We share the great sorrow which this announcement will cause to Church and nation. We ask the public to join us in praying that God will bring comfort and strength to the Prince and Princess, their children and the wider Royal Family. We urge the public to react with compassion and understanding and not to add unnecessarily to the pain already suffered by those involved. The interests and feelings of Prince Henry and Prince William should be borne constantly in mind. In continuing to perform their unique and stressful public duties despite their personal difficulties, the Prince and Princess will have our strong support, and we believe that of the nation as a whole.
Questions may be raised about the implications of the separation for His Royal Highness's position as future Supreme Governor of the Church of England. From a legal viewpoint, marital status does not affect the succession to the Throne and hence the title of Supreme Governor. The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church by virtue of being Sovereign.
198
There is no other legal requirement. Under the Act of Settlement of 1700, the Sovereign must be a communicant member of the Church of England.
Those who hold prominent and symbolic positions in the Church have to meet high expectations. These do not entail the absence of difficult past experiences. Indeed, the Church teaches that, although its members should all strive to follow Christ's perfect example, we can never fully achieve this ideal. All of us are in constant need of God's forgiveness, with its hope of redemption and renewal.
In the case of unsuccessful marriages, the Church of England accepts that there are sometimes circumstances, however sad, where separation is the lesser evil and the best way forward. To undergo such an experience and take such a decision does not in itself in any sense disqualify a person from holding the title of Supreme Governor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for what he has said. As your Lordships know, we are in the habit of starting every Session of this House with prayers which include prayers for the Prince and Princess of Wales and the other members of the Royal Family. I am sure that the most reverend Primate's encouragement will make us even more fervent in these prayers, not only at the opening of business sessions in the House but more generally. I am sure the whole House would also wish particularly to bear in mind what was said about Prince Henry and Prince William and also appreciate fully the reference to grace and forgiveness which I am sure all of us feel we need.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers, for very special reasons, will, I am sure, receive this Statement with very great sadness and with great regret.

Hong Kong and China
3.46 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for initiating this debate on Hong Kong and China. When first I saw it had been put down I wondered whether it was too soon after the last debate on the subject. I turned out to be quite wrong. It has become an extremely topical subject. I look forward greatly to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. He brings, of course, a wealth of experience and great knowledge of the subject to our debate.
Unlike him, and indeed most of the speakers today, I am a complete novice. I visited Hong Kong and China, but only once and nearly 10 years ago. Obviously I must visit them again to try to acquire a greater understanding of the issues, which can be achieved only by directly experiencing what is going on and meeting those who are affected.
The next three or four years are clearly of crucial importance both to the future of Hong Kong and to the future of Sino-British relations. I was glad to hear

199
the Minister confirm the importance that the Government attach to these relations. Both the future of Hong Kong and our relations with China are inextricably linked to each other. The UK Government and the Governor of Hong Kong have a difficult tightrope to walk in balancing the various objectives. I recognise that and I am sure that every other speaker in the debate will also do so. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, I do wonder whether the way Mr. Patten has handled recent events has been in the long-term interests of Hong Kong. And it is those interests that should be paramount in the tricky negotiations about the extension of democracy in the colony.
It goes without saying that greater democracy in Hong Kong is a highly desirable goal. The Labour Party strongly supports the democratisation that was agreed with China in the Joint Declaration and which was then embodied in the Basic Law. However, what was agreed has to some extent at least been overtaken by events, including the sweeping victory of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong in the 1991 direct elections to the Legislative Council, when 16 out of 18 of the directly elected seats were won by the United Democrats and their allies. Pressure has since built up in Hong Kong for even greater democratisation. The Governor responded to those pressures with new proposals set out in his speech to the Legislative Council in October. The proposals he made are in themselves laudable. Who would dispute the need to widen the franchise and allow far more people the right to vote? Who would dispute the desirability of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, thus bringing Hong Kong into line with most other democratic countries?
The key question is not whether we should back those changes —of course we should. The key question is whether, by announcing them when he did, and in the way that he did, the Governor may have put at risk more than he is gaining by making those changes. The Chinese Government's reaction can in no way be condoned. They have, in fact, over-reacted in a rather absurd fashion. To refuse to endorse any contracts negotiated which go beyond 1997 and which have not been agreed with China beforehand does not look like a sensible response in terms of their own interest. Some of those projects require substantial capital. The question the Chinese must ask themselves is whether Western or Japanese financial institutions will provide that capital if every new development is subject to a Chinese veto over the next four years. If capital is not provided, the extraordinary economic growth which has been produced in South China and Hong Kong could be jeopardised.
But I return to the question of how the Governor, backed presumably by the UK Government, has handled the matter. I do not often find myself agreeing with quotations from the Sunday Times these days, but I do agree with the quotation from that paper given by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. While the Government have already claimed, in answer to a Question put down by my noble friend Lord Judd, that the Basic Law has not been breached by Mr. Patten's proposals—I accept that that may well be the
200
case, although I should like some clarification from the Minister—the question I should like to ask her is whether those proposals are in line with the spirit of the Joint Declaration. By using the device of creating more functional constituencies which will give a large number of people the vote, Chris Patten has been, in one sense, very clever; but has he been a bit too clever by half?
Is it skilful diplomacy to try to pull a fast one on the Chinese in that way? Surely, having alighted on that clever way round some of the restrictions imposed by the earlier agreements, it would have been better first to canvass opinions in the Chinese Government. I am not arguing that the Chinese would necessarily have been persuaded, but they just might have been, and they certainly would have been less affronted. If it is true that the Foreign Secretary informed the Chinese Foreign Secretary of those plans in New York in September, why was not the way prepared earlier, and why did not the Governor of Hong Kong at least consult the Chinese before making an announcement? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when she replies.
There is now anxiety that convergence with the Basic Law in 1997 will be more difficult and that a smooth transition will be jeopardised. Most commentators agree that what was negotiated in the Basic Law was something of an achievement. While, of course, one could have hoped for even more, the best should not become the enemy of the good. Mr. Patten may bring it off, and if he does we should all be delighted, but he is taking a considerable risk—a risk that could jeopardise our economic interests, but, much more importantly, could lead to less rather than more democracy in Hong Kong. Any further light the Minister can shed on that issue would be helpful. I was glad to hear her say that the Government are ready to talk to the Chinese Government at any time. Could she be more precise and say when the Government next intend to discuss Hong Kong's future, including the 1995 Legislative Council elections, with the Chinese Government? She has admitted that there is little time and that it is a matter of urgency.
I wonder whether one solution to the current impasse with China might be to offer more flexibility on the issue of contracts in exchange for greater understanding of the need for democratisation on the part of the Chinese. There is a case for more consultation on all major contracts that run beyond the handover to the Chinese. I accept that legally the Hong Kong Government have no need to consult, but politically would it not be sensible to do so?
Although there are still difficulties, we have now agreed to consult on the building of the airport since it straddles 1997. Would it not be wise to extend that to other major projects that go beyond that date? In return, the Chinese should be asked to drop their opposition to matters such as changes in fiscal policy or the granting of licences to radio stations, which in no way breach the Basic Law. Since Hong Kong and South China are now becoming a single entity in economic terms, that would surely make sense.
As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has already said, the economic development of South China has been

201
quite remarkable. I shall not repeat the statistics with which he has already provided us. There can be little doubt that the communist system is breaking down there, from an economic point of view. One hopes that that will spread gradually to the rest of China, but the Chinese Government's decision to put economic reform before political reform, to which the noble Lord referred, in no way justifies the flagrant breaches of human rights that have been occurring in China on a large scale. Amnesty International's report earlier this year provides a catalogue of grotesque violations of the most basic human rights. Hundreds of prisoners of conscience remain in detention. Many have not received fair trials after arbitrary arrest. There have been persistent reports of torture, and, worst of all, unarmed demonstrators have been killed, and summary executions are not uncommon. The recent developments in Xinliang Province are a particular cause for anxiety.
We have heard from the Minister that the parliamentary delegation, headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, investigating human rights abuses in Hong Kong returned from China yesterday. Perhaps the Minister will ensure that a copy of its report is placed in the Library. Will she also say what, if any, representations the Government have made recently to China on the abuse of human rights in that country? In the light of China's poor record in that respect, there is understandable anxiety about the protection of human rights in Hong Kong. I understand that a Bill of Rights was adopted in June, which incorporated certain provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into Hong Kong law. There are worries about whether the Bill of Rights and, particularly, those ICCPR provisions will still apply after 1997. Amnesty International has also raised the question of whether safeguards to protect prisoners of conscience are adequate. Perhaps the Minister will say what steps are being taken to meet those anxieties. I am sure that she will agree that everything possible should be done to ensure that human rights in Hong Kong are respected after the handover in 1997.
When the subject of Hong Kong and China was last debated, my noble friend Lord Judd referred to another important matter concerning human rights —the fate of the Vietnamese boat people. Their human rights must also be protected. It would be helpful to have from the Minister the latest estimate of the number of people now in Hong Kong and how many new arrivals reached the colony in 1992. Will she also tell the House what progress has been made since our previous debate in the screening of the boat people to assess whether they qualify for asylum? Amnesty International claims that the screening process is still deficient. What, if any, steps are being taken to rectify that?
As we all know, the very low standards of living in Vietnam are an important reason why many Vietnamese are still trying to leave the country and reach Hong Kong, despite the huge risks involved. The continuing economic embargo enforced by the US against Vietnam, including the vetoing of IMF
202
and World Bank loans scheduled for that country, is, to say the least, unhelpful. The recent thawing of relations between the US and Vietnam is a start, but that crippling embargo must be lifted.
Since President-Elect Clinton has said that he values the special relationship that exists with the UK, will the Government make use of that and make representations to the new US Government to change their policy? While on the subject of Mr. Clinton, will the Government also be taking up his offer, which he was reported to have made yesterday, to help relieve the Sino-British tensions over Hong Kong? Assuming that there is an American policy change on Vietnam, can we expect a further increase in UK aid, as well as the promotion of aid and investment in Vietnam?
I conclude by saying that we have an enormous responsibility to secure the prosperity and political future of Hong Kong and its people. The previous debate on Hong Kong focused heavily on the economic miracle taking place in South China, led in many ways by Hong Kong. The economic success of this area is, of course, welcome and long may it continue. It opens up huge opportunities for UK companies as well as for business interests in Hong Kong. However, I hope that today we shall focus rather more on the difficult and delicate diplomacy to be conducted to ensure a transition in 1997 that protects the political rights of the people of Hong Kong. We owe it to them to be unstinting in our efforts to achieve that.
4 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the whole House is in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, not just for his choice of subject and for the expertise he showed in introducing the debate but for his acute sense of timing. It is difficult to imagine that we could have had this debate at a more appropriate time, and we thank him for it.
I am also grateful for the chance to speak early in the debate and to make my own few rather simple observations before the positive avalanche of experience and wisdom which will descend upon us from a number of Members of this House. Their views we all greatly respect, not least of course those of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who will speak next and who I know will have the keen attention of the whole House.
Yesterday I returned from China where I was a member of a small mission led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, to the People's Republic of China, following up the Prime Minister's visit. Our mission was designed to discuss matters of mutual interest, including human rights. As the noble Baroness has already reported, I know how disappointed the noble and learned Lord is not to be able to be here for this debate.
On the question of human rights in China, I do not wish today to attempt to pre-empt the conclusions of our mission, on which we shall report in the New Year. Perhaps I may simply say that by the standards of open, plural and liberal democracy which we take for granted in the West there are still matters of grave concern affecting individuals and communities in

203
China, not only dissenters or religious and ethnic minorities but also the men and women in the streets, the factories and the fields, and too many of them in the prisons.
Even making allowances, as we must, for the very different history and culture of this ancient land, there are many weary miles yet to be travelled before China is a full part of a world community of shared values. Yet at the same time it would be foolish not to recognise the pressures, both internal and external, in China for reform of law, institutions and practices. It would be churlish of us not to acknowledge that some progress—limited as yet but potentially more dramatic—is being made.
Our mission encountered nothing but co-operative courtesy and a surprising degree of forthcoming response given the inevitably intrusive nature of our questioning of their system. I believe that this was not least due to the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is identified as a long-standing and good friend of China.
Turning to the wider issues in this debate, it is worth reporting that General Secretary Jiang Ze Min, when we met him last week, told us that for her part China is seeking to build a,
"socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics".
He went on to say that the relationship that China seeks with Britain is one of mutual respect. Both these statements—interspersed, I may say, with an impressive rendering of the opening part of the Gettysburg Address in English and with references to his reading of Adam Smith, Keynes, Samuelson and Milton Friedman—are of great significance and deserve the closest attention.
First, on the question of the market economy, as noble Lords have already said, there is an extraordinary boom in southern and eastern China which, taken together with Taiwan and Hong Kong, now make up greater China—not just another tiger but a positive super-tiger. It is one of the fastest-growing and most exciting areas of economic development in the entire world. This year the rate of economic growth in Shanghai alone will be 15 per cent.
This is also an increasingly inter-penetrated area, with both Taiwanese and Hong Kong investment playing a prominent role on the mainland. However, the British role—even allowing for investment indirectly via Hong Kong—is still, I fear, disappointingly small. Of 1,576 joint ventures in Shanghai established in the past year or so, amounting to projects worth over 8 billion dollars, only 18 are British, although the companies include BOC, Pilkington's and Unilever. It is also fair to say that a number of other companies have established offices there. The development in Pudong to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred is breathtaking. It makes Docklands look like a model village. It is a shame that there is not yet more active British involvement directly in this extraordinary development. Perhaps the noble Baroness could refer to this in her summing up.
I wonder whether the FCO and the British Overseas Trade Board at the DTI should not between them step
204
up our representation and export efforts in this dynamic area on the old principle that resources should be allocated to opportunity not to problems. Perhaps more resources should go to Shanghai, and I think we should look seriously at the possibility of a consul in Canton.
As noble Lords will know, China is anxious to join the GATT, as she is to attract inward investment. I suggest that one area in which we should be firm with the Chinese is to encourage them to shape up to international norms in terms of trade. First, there should be greater transparency of regulations. There are too many regulations which are not published. Secondly, there should be a removal of artificial, non-trade barriers; there should be a removal, or at least a disclosure, of quotas. For example, the quota on alcohol is not helpful to important British interests. Further, the legal conditions which protect foreign trade transactions should be examined.
To give one or two examples, there are unpublished regulations and prohibitions on the import of beef and dairy products from France, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. There are veterinary inspection regulations which make it difficult for our producers to export directly to China. Another example is that registration is required of pharmaceuticals and the criteria for registration are not sufficiently clear so they can be arbitrarily changed to make it difficult for foreign pharmaceutical exporters.
What I am really saying is that if China wishes to become a member of the GATT, as she clearly wishes to very badly, she needs to have a major sort-out of her commercial law. In fact China needs a sort-out of her law generally. Here there are encouraging signs. We were told that there is a major law reform promised for some time next year. Some noble Lords may have seen the speech last week by Xiao Shi in which he said that China must modernise her structures. He specifically said:
"We must legalise our socialist democracy in order to have laws which we can keep unchanged regardless of the shuffles of the leaders".
This from a leading member of the Central Committee is an extraordinarily significant movement towards a government of laws not men. It looks as though the old Chinese proverb or maxim that policies are better than laws, and leadership is better than policies, may be in the process of being replaced by a sense of the primacy of the law, important for human rights and important for commercial transactions.
Therefore it is a time of change in China and I believe that Britain and Hong Kong have a vital role to play in that. To revert to the remarks of the General Secretary, he called for mutual respect. I should like to suggest that we should regard this as a time to stay cool and courteous. On these Benches we certainly believe that the Governor General must be backed steadfastly in his modest and realistic proposals for amplifying democracy in Hong Kong. I fear that I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in characterising Mr. Patten's policies as pulling a fast one. There is already a danger that some elements of the Beijing leadership believe after the last few months that the British Government are weak and easily

205
deflected from their purposes, so let us be staunch in our defence of liberal values within the terms of the Joint Declaration that we have made with China.
Let us also be sure to consult and reason together with the Chinese, with whom we are enforced historical partners in Hong Kong, but, even more, potential allies for the future peace and prosperity of the region. This is a part of the world where history is being made, and it is our role to help ensure that so far as can be managed—and it will be difficult—economic and political freedom advance together and are not divided. That will best be achieved by speaking softly, by putting down our big sticks and by ensuring that a dialogue of mutual respect with China is maintained and extended.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I speak for the first time in your Lordships' House with more than the usual degree of trepidation. Your Lordships' House contains a great deal of expertise on Hong Kong. Among noble Lords there are several former Ministers of the Crown who held responsibility for Hong Kong while I was Governor. There is one very distinguished former Governor, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, under whom I was fortunate enough to serve several years ago. As the list of speakers for today's debate shows, many noble Lords have direct personal experience of Hong Kong and China. My trepidation is only somewhat alleviated by the friendly reception that your Lordships give to any new Member of this House, whether they be from down the corridor and another place quite close at hand, or, like myself, from other places much further away.
Hong Kong is indeed geographically distant, but I believe that it is close to the hearts of many of us, and quite rightly will be close to the concerns of the British Government over the years to come. It has been a tremendous privilege to have been Governor of that territory during the past five years or more, and to see Hong Kong survive and flourish despite a whole series of difficulties that could well have overwhelmed a lesser territory, or a lesser people, and that is great credit to the people of Hong Kong.
Flourish, Hong Kong certainly has. The statistics are well known to many noble Lords and I will not repeat them. One has to see Hong Kong to believe the way in which it has flourished. There can surely be few places in the world where the Financial Secretary regularly wakes up in the morning and finds that he has an even greater surplus than he had anticipated. That economic success is important not just for its own sake but because it has enabled the Hong Kong Government and its hard-working, dedicated civil service to do so much for the people of Hong Kong.
One of the unfortunate elements of fall out from the present all too public dispute is that a large section of the Governor's annual address to the Legislative Council this October, which dealt with what Hong Kong has done and will do for the people of Hong Kong—ambitious and well-founded plans—has fallen somewhat into obscurity. Nor should the present dispute allow another important fact to be obscured,
206
and that is the real and commendable way in which the Governor, Mr. Chris Patten, has, with enormous energy, in a short period of time endeared himself to people in Hong Kong. I am sure that that will stand him in good stead in the months and years to come.
That prosperity of Hong Kong, that economic success, is inseparable from the economic success of China as a whole and Southern China in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, to whom we are much indebted for this debate, described eloquently and accurately the astonishing progress of China. That too has to be seen to be believed. China as a whole has grown at something like 8 per cent. every year for the last five years, and United Nations' statistics estimate that it will grow faster than that, at over 9 per cent in the years to 1996. But Southern China has grown even faster; by 13 per cent. a year every year for the last five years. The journey from the border of Hong Kong to Canton is now like going through a gigantic building site.
That economic success is not just inseparable from the economic success of Hong Kong. Each gains from what the other has done. That is one of many reasons why it is so important that Hong Kong should continue to build up its economic and transportation infrastructure, including building a new airport and developing its port. But that economic relationship is only part of a much wider relationship with China. It is never an easy relationship. The systems, the traditions, are so different. There is much suspicion on both sides. But it is a relationship that surely has to be worked at. China cannot be neglected as an important factor for Hong Kong. There must be contact; there must be discussion. In that, I believe we should always keep in mind the long-term interests of the people of Hong Kong and what really matters to them not just in the next few years but also in the years after 1997.
Nobody who has the interests of Hong Kong at heart can fail to be concerned by the intensity and the implications of the present dispute about constitutional arrangements. It cannot be good for Hong Kong and it cannot he good for China in the long run to have a long-running dispute of this sort. I noted—and the noble Baroness the Minister has just repeated this —that when the Governor put forward his proposals this October, they were just that: proposals; no more, no less; and that he welcomed other proposals.
I hope that other proposals will indeed be put forward in Hong Kong so that there may be a chance to find a structure for the 1995 elections that will be satisfactory and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong, and which, through discussion with China, can last long after 1997. I believe that continuity is of great importance to Hong Kong for the sureness that the people of Hong Kong need in their personal lives and in making commercial judgments. Continuity was one of the aims and one of the achievements of the Joint Declaration of 1984, and I believe that continuity in the Legislative Council as much as anything else remains an important objective.
Despite all the present difficulties I remain confident about the longer-term future of Hong Kong. The economic success story of China and of Hong Kong, to which those noble Lords who have already

207
spoken have referred, is a key factor. It is like a great stream that is carrying Hong Kong forward into the future. In that stream there will always be rocks— political obstacles. The task must be so to navigate the boat that it does not founder on those rocks, but carries forward Hong Kong and its people to a successful future, which they look to so strongly and which they deserve so much.
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, it is my great privilege, on behalf of the House, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, on the most excellent maiden speech he has just made: a subject upon which he has so much knowledge and understanding. I seem to remember that I had something to do with his governorship of Hong Kong and, in so far as I did, I think it was an extremely good choice. He was a very distinguished governor at a most difficult time. People remember what happened in 1989, and he saw Hong Kong through that time.
I should also like to say thank you to him for the great part he played in the very tough negotiations with China in order to get the Joint Declaration that we eventually succeeded in having. May I also say that that took a long time. There were many setbacks: times when we got nowhere, times when we had to give ground and times when we gained ground. But had either side left the field at the first whiff of grapeshot there would never have been a Joint Declaration. There would have been a very much lesser future for Hong Kong than there is as a result of that persistence. I would also thank the noble Lord for choosing this occasion to speak, because it is the first time in my 33 years in Parliament that I have had the privilege of congratulating a maiden speaker; so it is in a way a double first.
My purpose in speaking in this debate is strongly to support the Governor of Hong Kong and to commend a policy of good relations with China. Noble Lords will detect that I do not believe there need be any contradiction between these two propositions. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for his fascinating speech in opening this debate. As a result of the sentences I have already uttered, he will realise that I do not wholly agree with him. Perhaps I may just take up one point which both he and the noble Baroness opposite made. There seems to be some idea that it was not what the Governor said but the manner in which or the occasion on which he said it that has given rise to the problems. The Governor chose to unveil his proposals to the people of Hong Kong in an address at the opening of the 1992–93 session of the Legislative Council. It would seem to me very strange for this House to choose such an occasion as one of criticism.
Secondly, the Governor is a master of the English language. His command of it is tremendous. The speech was marvellously well constructed and I have no doubt it was wonderfully delivered. Just look! I happen to have it with me in case any such criticism arose. An instinct for these criticisms has been bred in me for many years. The Governor said:
208
"Democracy is more than just a philosophical ideal. It is, for instance, an essential element in the pursuit of economic progress … Without the rule of law buttressed by democratic institutions, investors are left unprotected. Without an independent Judiciary enforcing laws democratically enacted, businesses will be vulnerable to arbitrary political decisions taken on a whim—a sure recipe for a collapse in confidence and a powerful deterrent to investors from overseas".
It was a splendid speech, magnificently constructed, and I have no doubt that it was greeted with a great deal of admiration at the time. I still have a great deal of admiration for the way in which the Governor is conducting his very difficult task now.
Like other noble Lords, I have visited Hong Kong many times. It never ceases to amaze me. It is proof that when you allow free rein to people to exercise their talents under a rule of law, they can create a wondrous economy, even without natural resources and on just a small spit of land. In these unpromising conditions they have made tiny Hong Kong the world's tenth largest trading economy. Dean Inge remarked that
"the nations which have put mankind most in their debt have been the small states—Israel, Athens, Florence, Elizabethan England".
Hong Kong deserves a place in that pantheon. It is a superlative example of how British administration and Chinese talent can succeed in combination.
China's own economic performance in recent years has been almost as remarkable, and the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, gave us some fascinating statistics. Thanks to Mr. Deng Xiaoping's reforms, the market is being allowed to work and foreign investment is encouraged. As a result, the Chinese economy is growing at an unprecedentedly high rate and living standards are improving rapidly. Like others, I have spoken up strongly in support of those changes in China, which hold out great hope for the future. Indeed, I believe that, partly as a result of them, the economic centre of gravity in the world will steadily shift towards the Asia-Pacific region over the next 20 to 30 years.
What is happening in China is extremely encouraging for the people of Hong Kong. They see great opportunities, both now and after 1997. Indeed recognition of the opportunities is dwarfing their earlier fears about what 1997 would mean for them. They recognise that economically China has changed greatly since the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984.
The decision to return Hong Kong to China's sovereignty was not an easy one, given the differences between their political systems and their way of life. We agonised over it, knowing that it was not the people of Britain who would suffer if it went wrong but the people of Hong Kong, who were our charge and our responsibility. But no other realistic course was open to us under the terms of the original lease, which covered 92 per cent. of Hong Kong's territory, excluding only Hong Kong Island itself, a small part of the Kowloon peninsula and Stonecutters Island.
What tipped the balance, what made it acceptable both to us and to the people of Hong Kong, was Mr. Deng's concept of "one country two systems". It was

209
embodied in the Joint Declaration which Mr. Deng and I agreed in 1984. It promises that, and I quote from the declaration:
"the basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong … will remain unchanged for 50 years".
This guarantees that Hong Kong will keep its way of life and its freedom for at least 50 years after 1997. I asked Mr. Deng at the time why he had chosen 50 years. He told me that this was the time it would take for China's standard of living to come close to Hong Kong's. In the light of the way China's economy has grown since 1984, that may well be achieved considerably ahead of Mr. Deng's original assessment.
Democracy has not historically been the first concern of Hong Kong's people. Their priority has been sound administration and a rule of law with an independent judiciary, under which they could concentrate on creating prosperity from their trade and industry. But more recently they have clearly wanted to play a greater role in their own affairs. It is true that historically in the world an enterprise economy has usually preceded a political democracy, but the latter usually follows from the establishment of the former. Progressively the people of Hong Kong have been able to play a greater role in their own affairs.
Some would say that the steps taken so far to extend democracy have not been sufficient. In fact, I believe that supply and demand have been kept in balance, taking account of Hong Kong's special position. Most important, to my mind, has been the agreement with China, which steadily increases the number of directly elected seats in Hong Kong's Legislative Council up to and after 1997. This is a crucial point. Provision for the steady expansion of democracy in Hong Kong has already been agreed with China. Indeed, China's Basic Law for Hong Kong, which will in effect be the constitution after 1997, says in Article 68:
"The ultimate aim is the election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage".
It is already agreed that half the members of the Legislative Council will be directly elected in the year 2003. That means that there could be universal suffrage by 2007, 10 years after the end of Britain's responsibility. It is not perfect perhaps, but it is a provision for steady and orderly progress towards full democratic elections.
That is the background against which our new, imaginative and competent Governor had to reach decisions about the governance of Hong Kong in the remaining years of British rule. In particular, he had to settle the arrangements for the elections to be held in 1995, which would take Hong Kong through to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. The Governor has not invented the need to come forward with proposals. Legislation has to be in place to enable the 1995 elections to be held. The Governor had to take account, first, of the views of the people of Hong Kong. There was considerable demand in Hong Kong for more directly elected seats in 1995, going beyond the 20 already agreed with China.
The Government have said on several occasions that they would seek to persuade China to increase the
210
number, and I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised the subject when he met the Chinese Foreign Minister at the United Nations on 25th September this year. China made clear at that meeting that it was not prepared to move beyond the figure of 20 seats to which it had already agreed. At the same meeting on 25th September, nearly a fortnight before the Governor presented his proposals on 7th October, the Foreign Secretary told his opposite number the proposals which the Governor had in mind. Details were, of course, sent to the professional civil servant in Beijing who deals with the Hong Kong desk.
In the light of that it seems to me that the Governor has acted with great sensitivity and skill. He had to find a way to respond to the wishes of the people of Hong Kong for a broader franchise for 1995. But he also had to take account of China's strongly expressed opposition to more directly elected seats. In short, he had to strike a balance and put forward suggestions which would go some way to enlarge the franchise for 1995 but without infringing either the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law. He constantly stressed that in his speech on 7th October.
The proposals in his speech of 7th October succeed in striking that balance. They establish an Election Committee and set the franchise for nine additional functional constituencies. Those have to be created in 1995 to conform with the Basic Law after 1997.
The proposals also enlarge the franchise for the 21 existing functional constituencies. I should point out that only the working population are eligible to vote in those constituencies.
As the Government have already pointed out, the Governor has not proposed anything which conflicts with the Joint Declaration. In the Government's view and the Governor's view the proposals are within the Basic Law.
There is a second and no less important point. The Governor has said that his proposals are not intended as the last word but only as a basis for discussion, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, pointed out. Others are invited to comment on them and give their own ideas. That is clearly stated in his speech of 7th October. The Governor also said:
"the proposals I am putting forward this afternoon will require serious discussion with Peking".
It is a great disappointment that the Chinese Government have so far declined to do so.
I hope that alternative suggestions will nonetheless be forthcoming from different sources in Hong Kong itself which can be considered alongside those put forward by the Governor. The essence of democracy and indeed of good government is indeed choice.
China objects to the Governor's proposals and appears to see them as an attempt to internationalise the Hong Kong issue and—as I have seen it put in some reports—as part of a scheme to "encircle" China. To back up its objections China has launched a campaign to bring pressure on public opinion in Hong Kong and has called into question contracts which extend beyond 1997. That reaction is regrettable and I believe that it is unjustified.

211
In fact, the Governor's proposals are characterised by their modesty and by their recognition of China's view that there should be no more directly elected seats in 1995. I hope, therefore, that China will not go forward with its threat to interfere with contracts; indeed, that would harm its own reputation and affect the confidence of foreign investors in China itself, quite apart from conflicting fundamentally with the rule of law. We should reassure the Chinese that the Governor's proposals are not in any sense hostile to China and there is no intention to internationalise the issues.
The best outcome would be to go forward in agreement with China, as we have been able to do in the past by being patient and persistent. People in Hong Kong want continuity and a smooth transition in 1997, and China's agreement is desirable for that. But in the last resort, as is recognised in the Joint Declaration, it is Britain which has the responsibility for governing Hong Kong up to 1997. We must discharge that responsibility in accordance with our agreements and also with our principles and the wishes of Hong Kong's people.
I believe that these matters can be resolved. We have an excellent and most able Chinese Ambassador here in London. We have the example of the good relations built up between us and China in the years following the Joint Declaration up to 1989. Above all, we can draw confidence from the remarkable economic changes that have taken place in China and the promise they hold for the future.
Moreover, Hong Kong's interests and those of China run increasingly closely together. Nowhere is this more so than in questions of trade. Both have a very strong interest in open trade and in preserving most favoured nation status for China in the United States. I have personally spoken up strongly for that in the Asian-Pacific region, in both Taiwan and South Korea, and I have also spoken up for it in the United States.
The question of human rights does indeed have to be pursued, and I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe has just returned from a mission to China. We pursue our concern for human rights vigorously in our relations with many countries. But I believe that it would be profoundly misguided for an incoming American administration to try to put pressure on China over human rights by restricting trade. That would hit hardest at precisely the wrong people: those who are building small businesses which are the heart of China's growing free enterprise. It would also hit hard at Hong Kong itself, many of whose people have come from China to live under a rule of law and a democratic system.
President Bush was absolutely right to resist the use of that blunt weapon and I hope that a similar view will be adopted by his successor. His task will be easier to the extent that China is not seen to be acting unreasonably over the very modest proposals which the Governor has made.
In conclusion, there is no reason why the Governor's proposals should harm relations with China. They are modest; they are compatible with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law; and they are
212
open to discussion. They go some way to meet the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and at the same time respect China's position.
The best and most helpful stance which we in this House can take is to support the Governor, to reiterate our sincere wish to proceed by agreement with China, but to make it clear that that cannot be at the expense of what we believe to be right.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, it has given me great personal pleasure to be here for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. I join the House in congratulating him on a speech of exceptional quality. I am sure there will be many occasions during the coming years when his deep knowledge and experience of China and Hong Kong will enrich our debate.
I have sometimes reminded this House that Hong Kong is a community that in so many ways is far better equipped than most to look after its own affairs. It is fiercely self-reliant; aid and charity it neither receives nor expects from anyone. In only 40 years it has transformed in a most astonishing way its economy and its society through hard work and enterprise. Yet history and politics deny us the control over our own destiny for which we are so amply qualified. Hong Kong is forced to rely on the governments of Britain and China to arrange its political destiny.
Hong Kong deeply appreciated the efforts that both governments put into the negotiations which led to the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. That agreement and the underlying concept of "one country, two systems" were rightly praised as being far sighted. It was a public pledge by the two governments that they would work together to ensure a prosperous and stable future for Hong Kong.
Why is it then that the transition period which began in 1985 has been so fraught with difficulty? We got off to a good start by securing Hong Kong's future status in GATT. But since then, more and more important discussions have become bogged down and there has been more and more bickering. Some topics were resolved disappointingly, such as the composition of the final court of appeal. Some topics have dragged on year after year: for instance, the residential status of non-Chinese nationals, defence lands and air service agreements. Even after the two Prime Ministers signed the memorandum of understanding on a replacement airport only a year ago, there is further disagreement over financing which threatens the viability of this important project.
Fortunately for us in Hong Kong, and for countries throughout the world—including Britain and China —which benefit directly from Hong Kong's economic success, Hong Kong has not allowed itself to be distracted by any of these setbacks. We have seized the opportunities presented to us by the opening up of China's economy. We have been the driving force behind the spectacular growth in southern China over the past 10 years. We shall continue to play a key role in the greater China economy in the years to come. We all know that our future lies with China.

213
The Chinese Government very publicly and loudly blame the Governor's proposals for political evolution for the current impasse. The British Government blame China's groundless suspicions of British motives. As is always the case, neither party can be solely to blame.
The root cause of Hong Kong's problems seems to be a conviction on the part of China's senior leaders that Britain has some mischievous hidden agenda which it is seeking to carry out. They appear to believe that Britain wants to wreck Hong Kong as some form of revenge for yielding sovereignty to China in 1997, or that Britain plans to keep some control of Hong Kong after 1997 in order to threaten China.
I should like to take this opportunity to state with all the firmness at my command that these suspicions are absolutely without foundation. If I had ever thought that there was a grain of truth in these suspicions, I would have refused to serve the Hong Kong Government, and I believe that all my colleagues on the Executive Council would have done the same.
But looking back, Britain also bears responsibility. Only three years ago, there was a community-wide consensus in Hong Kong on the sort of political evolution we wanted to see. This consensus was formed before the Chinese Basic Law for Hong Kong was finalised. The members of the Executive and Legislative Councils were united in urging the British Government to pursue it with vigour. As a senior member I came to London to lobby for it.
However, the British Government refused us in the name of convergence and in the face of China's objections. The force of those objections was not, in my judgment, adequately tested. The recent publication of diplomatic exchanges has revealed how the fate of Hong Kong people was traded.
Is it any wonder that many people in Hong Kong are bewildered by the British Government's decision, so much later in the day, to pursue greater democracy in Hong Kong? And after a long history of deals cut behind closed doors, is it really surprising that the Chinese Government find the new openness of approach difficult to comprehend?
The people of Hong Kong are faced yet again with paying the price for a dispute which is not of their making. Once again, we endure the frustration of standing by helplessly while our affairs are discussed by others.
In the war of words, the debate is no longer about the merits of the proposals. People are forced to take sides: are you for Britain, or are you for China? People are forced to choose between short-term interests and long-term aspirations. There is growing anger in Hong Kong at being placed in this dilemma.
If we examine for a moment the apparent substance of the dispute, the picture becomes even more absurd, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, has already pointed out. The Governor had to come up with detailed proposals for changing the electoral law to constitute a legislature in 1995 which will straddle 1997. This he has done. He has put forward a package of imaginative proposals. He made it clear that these
214
were proposals only, which would need to be seriously discussed. Most of his proposals are uncontroversial. Indeed, they were admired and welcomed. The arguments are about only two subjects: the make-up of the nine new functional constituencies and the composition of the electoral college which will return 10 out of 60 LEGCO members when the appointment system is phased out.
Instead of forming the basis for a dialogue and a constructive exchange of ideas, his proposals have triggered a barrage of hostile statements and propaganda. I do not doubt that China has the interests of Hong Kong people at heart, but it must surely be clear to the Chinese that their strident words in recent weeks have had the opposite effect.
Hong Kong has the right to expect better than this. In the Joint Declaration both Britain and China promised to co-operate during the transitional years to ensure a smooth transfer of sovereignty and the maintenance of our prosperity and stability. The people of Hong Kong welcomed and accepted the Joint Declaration because we trusted that commitment by the two Governments to see us safely through.
This row is not about who has the biggest political muscle. The lives, the hopes, the plans, the families of 6 million people are at stake, not those who participate in the present tug-of-war. Nor is it any longer about whether Hong Kong should have a little more democracy. It is now about how Hong Kong is to manage its relationship with China on the basis of "one country, two systems". Hong Kong people realise the importance of standing up for their rights if the vision of the Joint Declaration is to become a reality. They also realise the importance of good relations with their future sovereign.
Where is the balance? Are we to retreat in the face of China's objection and allow the "high degree of autonomy" promised to Hong Kong to be devalued? Are we to proceed with the Governor's proposals and risk the dismantling of our political systems after 1997? Shall we seek a compromise? Each of these choices carries immense implications for Hong Hong's future. They are choices which must be made by Hong Kong people themselves, without pressure from either Britain or China. Both Governments mean well. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, to whom I am indebted for this opportunity to speak, that we hope that the two Governments can iron out their difficulties over the negotiating table and not through loud hailers.
However, it is the Hong Kong people alone who have to live with the consequences. When the Hong Kong Government puts the electoral Bills to the members of the Legislative Council next year it will be for them to judge the wishes of Hong Kong people and where their best interests lie. The British and the Chinese Governments must be prepared to go as far as the community is prepared to go; no further, but no less far.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, as a former president of the Sino-British Trade Council and also as previous chairman of the Hong Kong Telecommunications Company, it grieves me to say at the outset that I find the present deteriorating relations between the Governor of Hong Kong and China, and in consequence between this country and China, to be unnecessary and fraught with danger. I say "unnecessary" because the agreement that had been painstakingly and exhaustively worked out between this country and the People's Republic of China implementing the transfer of sovereignty was a skilful balance between the different economic, political and social cultures of China and Hong Kong. Much credit was due to Deng Xiaoping for the establishment of the "one country, two systems" concept and to my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and his successor Mr. Hurd for their accomplishment of the Basic Law and attendant provisions on human rights, an independent judiciary and progressive opening of the democratic process.
In the context of the agreement it is baffling to me, therefore, what real, long-term, enduring benefits will accrue from the Governor's present initiative in proposing further changes in the democratic process beyond those which had been enshrined in the Basic Law. Both sides have the same declared objective of economic growth and political stability for Hong Kong, so why has the present controversy arisen?
It arises in my view from a misreading of the fundamental transitional requirements of a system moving from the present benevolent autocracy, which this country has been content to operate in Hong Kong for more than 100 years, to a democratic structure in a society suddenly confronted with this opportunity.
We all applaud and endorse the moves agreed to in the Joint Declaration for more open and democratic procedures in the governance of Hong Kong. But the development of a full flowering democracy takes decades to achieve; it requires the development of democrats as well as democratic structures. So was there in Hong Kong an impelling urgency and need for the Governor to accelerate the democratic process beyond what Beijing had accepted in the Basic Law? I suspect that evidence may well be forthcoming in the coming weeks and months indicating that the Governor is not on as firm a ground as he may think in considering that his proposals are reflecting public opinion.
The silent majority in Hong Kong operates there as it does in this country. In Hong Kong the vast majority is concerned above all in having a job, a good standard of living and making money. It applauds the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in seeking a treaty with China to effect a smooth transition of power which preserves the economic imperatives of Hong Kong. It applauds the first real steps towards a more democratic process, but it will not understand or accept a confrontation with its new masters which will imperil what has been achieved through consultation and agreement.
216
I agree with my noble friend Lord Geddes that the Governor is an intelligent and sincere man with a respected reputation in this country and a developing one in Hong Kong. I have no doubt that his motives are well intentioned, but on this issue I regret that he is mistaken.
It is important to understand what the Governor proposed and why China reacted so strongly. The crux of the controversy centres on the number of directly-elected seats and the composition of the Electoral Committee. Recent publication of letters exchanged between China's Foreign Secretary, Mr. Qian Qichen, and Mr. Hurd in 1990 throw light on how misunderstandings have arisen and how accusations of bad faith and reneging of agreements are arising. In his letter of 18th January 1990 Mr. Hurd states:
"If however the Chinese side were prepared to increase the figure (of directly elected seats) for 1997 to 24 seats, i.e. 40% of the Legislative Council, I believe there is a good chance that the provisions for political development in the Basic Law would receive support within Hong Kong. We would then be enabled to give active support to those provisions".
After a further exchange of letters the Chinese agreed to raise their original proposal for 18 seats to 20 seats in 1997 and both sides agreed to an extension of the democratic process by steps so that 24 seats would be elected in 1999 and 30—that is, 50 per cent. —by 2003.
Notwithstanding that understanding, the Governor, without prior consultation, announced his proposal for additional directly elected seats, in an accelerated time frame. I cannot myself reconcile this unilateral acceleration in the democratic process with the letter and spirit of the understanding reached between Mr. Qian Qichen and Mr. Hurd, as revealed in their correspondence. Equally, the Governor's proposal to have all members of the Electoral Committee directly elected is considered by the Chinese to flout the arrangements agreed in principle by Mr. Hurd that the Electoral Committee should be constituted in accordance with Annex 1 of the Basic Law. This interpretation might be contested by the Governor as Appendix 1 of the Basic Law may be less than precise on this matter. But again, I think the spirit of the correspondence between the two Foreign Secretaries requires further explanation of why the Governor proposes fundamental change in the composition of the Electoral Committee.
The Governor promulgated his proposals in his policy address in October. He then asked for counter proposals by the Chinese. Such a procedure may be acceptable in a British democracy following centuries of traditional parliamentary procedure but frankly it makes no sense in China and Hong Kong. The Basic Law was drafted after months of debate, hard work and skilful and vigorous negotiations between representatives of Hong Kong opinion and officials on both sides with final approval by the Governments of China and the United Kingdom. It is a matter for genuine concern as to why proposed changes in fundamental constitutional matters should be conducted through the media rather than through the usual diplomatic and consultative channels.

217
I understand that the Governor was several times invited by Mr. Lu Ping, the head of Hong Kong and Macau Office, to go to Beijing before his policy speech to discuss his thoughts on constitutional reform but the Governor is alleged to have declined until after he had announced his constitutional package. As late as 3rd October, Mr. Lu Ping warned the Governor through our ambassador in Beijing that his proposals which had been communicated to the Chinese on 26th September made major changes which were against the spirit as well as the letter of the Basic Law and he urged that their common interests would be strengthened if there was co-operation and prior consultation rather than open debate. That advice was not heeded and the Governor went ahead with his policy address on 7th October. I consider that lack of prior consultation to be most unfortunate, arising from a misunderstanding of the Chinese sensitivity on adherence to agreements and to the step by step democratisation of the political process.
The consequences of that deterioration of relations with China could be grave. We are unnecessarily imperilling the Basic Law itself, which enshrines agreements on human rights, the rule of law, and judicial and political independence of Hong Kong. Confidence—that delicate flower—is being seriously eroded with severe economic and financial consequences. Inevitably, the sizeable trade between China and the UK will also be adversely affected and political relations which hitherto were extremely good between our two countries will be damaged. Loss of commercial and industrial confidence is one thing. The greater danger, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, pointed out, is the division of the people in Hong Kong. If the confrontation escalates further, there may be social turmoil. When we weigh the risks of these consequences against the changes proposed by the Governor, where lies the balance of advantage for the inhabitants of Hong Kong?
I yield to no-one in my affection and my concern for Hong Kong. It is a unique place and its potential as an engine of growth for China itself is immense. It is also a region which has attracted massive foreign investment of some 30 billion US dollars. What we do in Hong Kong is not just a UK matter but engages a far wider responsibility than normally involved in a British administration of a foreign territory.
I have been frank in my reaction to the proposed changes in the democratic structure before 1997. That does not mean that I am less enthusiastic about a more open and representative society than those of your Lordships who sincerely believe that we should accelerate the democratic process before we hand over power in 1997. But my priorities are radically different. What I regard as essential for the well-being of the 6 million Hong Kongers after 1997 are a free enterprise society, the preservation of the rule of law and an independent judiciary, combined with a passion for the establishment and safeguarding of human rights. These are the priorities which, together with the step by step democratisation of the political structure in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law,
218
will preserve the economic and political stability which the 6 million inhabitants of Hong Kong seek above all else.
That is not, as certain politicians in Hong Kong depict, a clash between ideologies—between fear of a dictatorial Marxist system and an emerging democracy. The return of Hong Kong is regarded by China as a long-lost child rejoining the family. It is a matter of national pride for China and we should understand that. It is not a matter of economics, and gambling on the importance of the economic benefits of Hong Kong to China would be very unwise.
The Basic Law provides for independence of the executive, legislative and judicial power as well as a catalogue of human rights preserving the essential freedoms of speech and the right to strike and freedom from arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. Why imperil all that and the free-enterprise system agreed for the next 50 years? I urge the Governor to think over his proposals. It is not by the quality of his intentions that the Governor will be judged, but by the consequences of his actions.
If public opinion both in LEGCO and the business and commercial community begin to reflect growing unease with his proposals and the Chinese reaction to them, then the Governor should recognise the realities of the situation and revert to the agreements which the Government of China and the UK have established in the Basic Law. When confidence and mutual respect have been restored, the normal diplomatic and consultative channels should be used for dialogue with Beijing on the infrastructure projects Hong Kong requires after 1997 and on whether any further modifications to the democratic process is possible or desirable.
If the Governor has the political wisdom and judgment to avoid a major confrontation with Beijing by recognising how the interests of all the citizens of Hong Kong are best served he will leave Hong Kong honoured and respected. The heat needs to be taken out of the present situation, and the sooner the better.
5.10 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn on his maiden speech. It was a remarkable speech. It is a great pleasure to have him in the House and to know that he will be addressing us often. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for initiating the Motion. It is most timely. The large number of speakers and the high quality of speeches we have heard show how this House approaches its responsibility towards Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, gave an authoritative account of the economic growth in China. It is against that background of economic success, which is breathtaking, that we must review recent developments in Sino-British relations over Hong Kong. On the economic side they have been spectacularly successful, to the great benefit of Hong Kong and other parts of China. The interchange of contact and commerce between the authorities and entrepreneurs of China and their Hong Kong counterparts is entirely satisfactory.

219
That is on the economic side. But on the political side matters have gone sadly wrong, as many noble Lords pointed out. They started well after 1984 but were knocked off course by the brutal tragedy of Tiananmen Square and the reaction of some people in Hong Kong to it. Since then on the Chinese side there has been deep mistrust and suspicion of British political, and even, as my noble friend Lady Dunn said, financial, intentions before our departure. That has been matched on the Hong Kong side with fear and frustration. Virtually no progress has been made, at least since the Prime Minister's visit, on the many points that must be agreed if the transition in 1997 is to go smoothly.
One of those points concerns the form that elections to the Legislative Council will take in 1995. As noble Lords pointed out, this is extremely important. If it conforms with the Basic Law that will apply from 1997, and conforms to China's satisfaction, the members could form the first Legislative Council of the SAR and thus provide the legislative continuity which is envisaged in the Basic Law and which all of us hope will occur. But that will involve substantial changes to current electoral arrangements.
That was the problem with which the new Governor was faced. In his first annual speech to the Legislative Council he announced his own proposals for such new arrangements. He emphasised that they were only proposals and invited alternatives. It is those proposals to which the Chinese have reacted so violently, approaching crisis proportions, and which are the reason this debate is so timely. The reaction has taken the form of criticism of the Governor personally on a scale of invective that I cannot remember since the Cultural Revolution, and progress appears to be blocked.
The package of proposals has been presented as the speeding up of democracy in Hong Kong. But in reality it relates only to specific issues in the 1995 elections, and the proposals fall far short of democracy as we know it. Their implications have been much exaggerated, but involve a substantial increase in the influence on membership of the Legislative Council of an enlarged electorate—an enlarged electorate not expected by China. The important and necessary changes in the electoral system were foreseen and were covered in an exchange of notes in 1990 between the Foreign Secretaries. They have also been referred to by other speakers this afternoon.
The basis of the present crisis is China's contention that the Patten proposals breach the provisions agreed in those notes both as to content and as to lack of adequate consultation before they were made. I should like to go through those points as, as it were, the Devil's Advocate in the hope that when the noble Baroness replies she can set my worries at rest.
First, the Chinese say that the proposals vitally affect the degree of convergence between current arrangements and those that would apply in 1997; as they include large constitutional changes, they should have been agreed in advance. As I understand it, they were informed a fortnight before and raised strong
220
objections, but nevertheless we went ahead in circumstances of maximum publicity, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, said. Was that really necessary?
Secondly, the Chinese claim that proposals to change the present electorate for functional constituencies from around 450,000 to 2.7 million amounts to direct elections for the nine new and 21 old seats involved. They say that that circumvents the undertaking given in 1990 that we would not increase directly elected seats beyond 20 in 1995 without Chinese agreement—an increase that we would have liked. Such a numerically large functional electorate would be quite different to the present arrangements which the Chinese and, I believe, we ourselves had in mind in 1990. That apart, the Chinese would appear to have a point that the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1990 agreement has been breached.
Finally, the Chinese complain that the proposals for an Election Committee to elect 10 members of the council are quite different to the composition set out in paragraph 2, Annex I of the Basic Law. In 1990 we agreed in principle that that could be established in 1995 along the lines of that passage of the Basic Law but subject to discussion of details. However, there has been no discussion of details and the proposal is quite different to that in the Basic Law.
I am concerned that there should be elements in those proposals that appear to be in breach, at any rate of the spirit, of the 1990 agreement. There appears to be a case to answer. I hope therefore that in reply the noble Baroness will set my mind, and I believe the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, at rest on those points.
I do not want to appear one-sided. The decision to go ahead may well have been influenced by frustration at the ineffectiveness of Sino-British negotiations in producing results on virtually anything since the Prime Minister's visit. Moreover, the Chinese pressure that has developed on Hong Kong and on the Governor personally is quite unacceptable. The threat to the validity of contracts straddling 1997 is not only wrong; it is a complete breach of the Joint Declaration.
That said, the fact we must face is that some proposals for the 1995 elections must be made and that the ones now made appear to be unacceptable to the Chinese Government even as a basis for discussion. Consequently, if passed into law in Hong Kong they would operate only between 1995 and 1997, when they would be dismantled. One may well ask what the benefit to Hong Kong people could possibly be of that limited increase in the electoral system for such a short time and at the price of a block in Sino-British relations, possibly right up to 1997, with all the uncertainty and destruction of confidence and sense of security that that would involve. Clearly some way forward must be found.
In introducing his proposals Mr. Patten used words which perfectly embody the facts of government in Hong Kong as we have come to know them over the years:
"I bring those opinions to the task of governing Hong Kong, where the ink of international agreements and the implacable realities of history, geography and economics shape and determine the way in which such views can be

221
applied. That is a fact well understood by men and women in this Territory, better understood by them perhaps than by many of those who would like the people of Hong Kong to be the heroic pawns of their own doubtless well meaning preconceptions".
It was so very well said. The power, reasonable expectation and rights of the Chinese Government can be disregarded only at the peril of Hong Kong. It is by the careful observance of these facts of life over the years that Hong Kong has been able to prosper in amity with China in such improbable circumstances. To make progress now these facts of life must be borne in mind.
As regards the proposals already made, they were made, as the noble Baroness said, to the Legislative Council. I suppose that in some form or another they will eventually come back to that council as draft legislation. The members will bear a heavy responsibility, but they are very able people and we will see what they can do. I agree that they should be left to do it without pressure from either China or Britain. I do not know whether progress can be made at this stage through that channel. But I hope that in any case the British Government will continue to emphasise, as the Governor has done and as the Minister did this afternoon, that these are just proposals and that some proposals must be made. If necessary, they should be alternative to those now on the table.
As the Minister said, there is need for a new dialogue. I do so agree. It is not impossible to produce new arrangements which meet the Chinese requirements of convergence with the Basic Law and the 1990 notes and still contain an increase in electoral processes. If so, this time I hope that they will be discussed in detail with the Chinese before publication. As the noble Baroness said, we must go forward with China.
Chris Patten has had two months of trauma. Well, trauma goes with that particular job. By all accounts he has stood up to it as to the manner born. Perhaps I may say how much I admire the speed with which he has obtained the support and affection of the Hong Kong people. He is surely the most consummate communicator that there has ever been in Government House. He has great popularity and influence. He may have been mis-directed over these proposals, but I am sure that he has the political experience, flexibility and charisma to lead Hong Kong back into a working political relationship with China. That is vital for Hong Kong and in that I wish him all success.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Geddes on initiating this timely debate and for his very well informed speech. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Chalker on her admirable reply and my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I congratulate too the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, whom we are so happy to see here. I thank them for their contributions.
I cannot claim to be a great authority on the People's Republic or on Hong Kong, although I have
222
been to Hong Kong three times. I was well instructed by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. I then led two comprehensive delegations to the People's Republic. I was in fact in China (Shanghai to be precise) when the Joint Declaration was initialled in 1984. I was certainly struck by the fact that there seemed then to be general agreement on its terms as between Britain, the People's Republic and leading figures in Hong Kong. I therefore thought that the proposals would work. I also thought that the Governor's speech to the Legislative Council on 7th October was a very precise, detailed and interesting statement on what we should do during our next five years in Hong Kong. In my view the Governor's speech was a skilful piece of work in so far as the constitutional package was concerned, the immediate initiatives, the proposals for the 1995 election and the need for an elected election committee.
I regret much of what has been said in the media. I greatly regretted to read in The Sunday Times in mid-November that what it described as our "old guard" was closing ranks in face of the new Hong Kong. I was distressed to read that Sir David Akers-Jones, a former Chief-Secretary, Sir Gordon Macwhinnie and even the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, were among that old guard. I do not consider him to be so old. He certainly made a very effective speech this afternoon.
Since then I was also somewhat disturbed to read the letter to The Times by Sir Percy Cradock, our former Ambassador in Peking, on the hard choice in regard to Hong Kong's future. It was also interesting to read the many letters in today's Times, particularly the one from Mr. Robert Fell, the Chief-Executive of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, supporting Sir Percy's views. I am sorry that I have read depressing pieces on the subject. I was also sorry to read, on the same day as Sir Percy's letter, about the contracts' pressure which China was putting on Hong Kong and in the Economist, also on 5th December, of Governor Patten's so-called "Chinese torture" and the controversial elements in the Governor's plans; that is to say, that China feels that its sovereignty is at stake in the battle with the Governor. In particular I refer to the proposal that the Election Committee, which would choose 10 out of the 60 seats in the Legislative Council in 1995, should itself be elected.
I was again disturbed to read about my right honourable friend the Governor's dilemma over widening democracy in Hong Kong. When he spoke to some of us recently in a room upstairs I did not think that he was making a calculated gamble and that the outcome seems so uncertain. Certainly, Hong Kong's confidence, as reflected in The Times last Saturday, that the gamble seems uncertain and that the so-called
"ruthless old men in Peking",
appear determined to thwart and even humiliate him I think went too far as, indeed, did the headline in the Daily Mail on the same day that "Patten must go" in view of the growing uneasiness of Hong Kong's businessmen in regard to the Governor's battle with Peking over democratic reform.

223
I certainly regret that plans within the framework of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law should so recently have been criticised when, at the time of the initialling of the Declaration in 1984, when I was in China, there seemed to be general acceptance on both sides that these plans were feasible. However, I am glad that there has been some recovery since the 300-point plunge in Hong Kong shares at the beginning of this month, even if the market still seems volatile.
I only hope that the so-called "old China hands", whom I greatly respect, will have their fears assuaged for I agree that my right honourable friend Mr. Patten deserves support from those whose policies may have been seen by some to have failed to provide sufficient democratic safeguards. I was, incidentally, interested to read that the Governor's reforms had won former President Nixon's backing. He certainly had considerable experience in the Far East. I was glad also to read that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, who negotiated the Sino-British Joint Declaration while Foreign Secretary—I am sorry that he is not with us this afternoon—said that he believed that the Chinese would eventually change their minds about the Governor's proposals for widening democracy. I was glad to read that at least.
I learn that the Chinese Government had already been given advance briefing on the Governor's proposals in September when the Foreign Secretary briefed the Chinese Foreign Secretary in New York. I was distressed that a Chinese spokesman said as recently as 3rd December that the Governor must abandon his plans for reform. I really do regret that.
I agree with those who think that this was disingenuous since the constitutional package does not, in my view, break either the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law, and I regret that Li Jianying went on to say that the Governor's proposals had forced China to reconsider whether the political system in Hong Kong should converge with the Basic Law, and whether a smooth transition is needed.
Finally, my right honourable friend Chris Patten is a first-rate professional politician. However, in my view, great diplomatic skill and tact is needed if we are to agree about Hong Kong's future with the Chinese Government and with those in Hong Kong who have been critical of the Governor's views. Whether we like it or not, I know that the Chinese do not like to be dictated to. I shall be seeing the Chinese Ambassador next week and shall be interested to hear his views. Above all, the last thing any of us would like to see is another massacre such as happened in Tiananmen Square. I can only offer my right honourable friend the Governor my good wishes in getting his proposals accepted.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, this is no platitude but I very much regret that I may be unable to remain for the duration of this debate because it is unlimited in time and I have a long-standing engagement which I must attend. For this, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Geddes, to all noble Lords who will speak in the debate, and to the House.
224
This debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Geddes, is timely. Since the debate has been on the Order Paper, relations between Hong Kong and China have deteriorated significantly, as we have heard. I hope that that is only a coincidence. We can read almost daily of China's displeasure. It does not like the fact that Hong Kong is ready to press on with the airport project. It does not like Mr. Patten's proposals for electoral reform and, above all, it does not like what it sees as the change in emphasis in negotiating style.
China has made it clear enough that it is angry. Increasingly intemperate statements have been issued by the Chinese Government and its agency in Hong Kong. As successive opinion polls since September have shown that Hong Kongers approve of the Governor's proposals, so has Beijing's aggression intensified.
China has turned the heat up—and Hong Kong is frying. The stock market has hit the skids in the face of threats to tear up the Joint Declaration, threats to tear up contracts signed prior to 1997, and threats to expel from the Legislative Council those members who vote for Mr. Patten's reforms. In the face of these loud "noises off", it is hardly surprising that some people are beginning to wobble. China's actions have given an opportunity to all those, be they businessmen or politicians, who have reservations about the merits of standing up for the guarantees contained in the Joint Declaration, if in so doing they provoke China into actions which they would see as harming Hong Kong. Their understandable concern is for stability and for keeping the "through train" on its track through to 1997 and beyond.
This position was cogently put by Sir Percy Cradock in a letter to The Times last week. Dealing with the Chinese response to the Governor's suggested reforms, he wrote:
"The logic and fairness of the Chinese response is neither here nor there—what matters is whether they will carry out their threats".
He went on to say that he believes that China will carry out its threats and, in the future interests of Hong Kong, he urged Mr. Patten to "modify" his proposals. This is a seductive argument, and one that has been backed by some of those who have great experience of China and Hong Kong. It is likely that this "modification" would buy a respite from the threats now being made to anybody who does not toe the Chinese line in Hong Kong.
I must admit that I find it rather bizarre that it is always Britain and Hong Kong which are expected to modify, as it is Britain and Hong Kong which are expected to converge. Some small modification from Beijing would be welcome. Its reactions to Mr. Patten's proposals—and, as we have heard, they remain only proposals—have been extraordinarily unconstructive and out of all proportion to their content. Incidentally, I wonder whether Beijing would be more receptive to an argument that was advanced in yesterday's edition of the Daily Telegraph by Lady Tanlaw who suggested that Mr. Patten should float the idea of an hereditary chamber in Hong Kong for —I think she said—the descendants of the heroes of the Long March and others who may not wish to go

225
through the boring electoral process. Be that as it may, I believe that the argument put forward for modification contains three fundamental flaws.
First, it contains an implicit assumption that there is reasonable basis for Beijing's hysterical reaction to Mr. Patten's proposals: that they contain some radical and provocative changes. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we have heard. These proposals are modest in the extreme. They contain no suggestion of altering the number of directly elected seats in the Legislative Council or of altering the number or proportion of seats specified in the Basic Law, a document which was both drafted and ratified by Beijing. All they contain are suggestions to widen the franchise of those seats which are not directly elected. As my noble friend Lady Thatcher pointed out, the Basic Law does not cover this aspect. Mr. Patten has rightly put forward proposals which are open, fair and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. In spite of noisy claims to the contrary, Mr. Patten's reforms do not contravene the Basic Law; nor of course do they run counter to the terms of the Joint Declaration, which, I would remind your Lordships, guaranteed Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy and indeed a greater measure of representative government than that contained in the Basic Law.
If there are violations of the Basic Law, it is China which is in danger of committing them at the moment. Its most recent threat, which I mentioned earlier, to tear up contracts, leases and agreements which straddle 1997, and which do not have China's approval, is contrary to Article 160 of the Basic Law which states,
"that documents, certificates, contracts and rights and obligations valid under the laws previously valid in Hong Kong shall continue to be valid and recognised and protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, provided they do not contravene this law".
Secondly, the modification argument takes no account of the expressed wishes of the Hong Kong people. The Governor's proposals for these modest electoral reforms have been welcomed there: as evidence, the majority vote in LEGCO last month in their favour, when 17 out of 18 of the directly elected members voted for them, and in the consistently favourable results of opinion polls taken since the reforms were first announced. Recently, Beijing's strident attacks have naturally eroded confidence. I question whether they have altered aspirations. Equally, like my noble friend Lord Geddes, I do not believe that too much should be read into the sharp falls in the Hang Seng Index. Hong Kong is an extremely resilient place. Where was the Hang Seng in 1967, when, I believe, a mob surrounded Government House keen to see the insides of the then Governor? Where was it in 1983 and of course in 1989? Hong Kong has had to learn to adapt to instability, and will I am sure show its usual resourcefulness in the face of the present difficulties.
The third and most fundamental flaw in the modification argument is that it ignores the lessons of history. The thrust of this argument, to simplify it, seems to be that if Beijing objects to a proposal, it should be abandoned. This is a policy of appeasement
226
—an ugly word, but I can think of no other. Appeasement has never worked in the past and it will not work now. Once begun it leads to more demands, each more difficult to resist once the slide has begun. Is this the best way to deal with our commitment to Hong Kong? I think not. The Governor has put forward proposals for fair, open and accountable government in Hong Kong which have been broadly welcomed. This is the time to support him, not to undermine him; and in this context I should like to suggest that some of the entrepreneurs who have done so well out of Hong Kong and who may feel that their success is due in some small measure to the freedom obtaining there as well as to their own abilities, should use their influence and contacts to persuade China that dialogue remains the most positive way forward both for Hong Kong and for China.
In the long term, the free markets and free trade on which Hong Kong's prosperity is built will depend on accountable government and on the rule of law which alone will protect Hong Kong from the corruption that is so endemic in China.
My noble friend Lord Geddes is surely right in calling for more light and less heat in the Hong Kong-China relationship, and I was glad to see that our Ambassador to Beijing, Sir Robin McLaren, was reported in The Times on Monday as calling for,
"the Chinese to start to talk instead of addressing us by megaphone".
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, is credited with the aphorism that "a week is a long time in politics". There remain over four and a half years before Hong Kong reverts to China. I am sure we can all be encouraged to hear from the Government that they will continue to take the long view and to remember that the promise central to the Joint Declaration remains "one country, two systems", and not "one country, one system". Democracy and freedom are values, not commodities to be bartered away to buy a temporary peace.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Shawcross: My Lords, old as I am, I cannot claim to be an old China hand, but my excuse for this rare intrusion into your Lordships' deliberations is that for the past 40 years or so I have been a regular visitor to Hong Kong, having various interests, particularly in the public relations industry, the press, television and so on, and I have travelled very extensively in China and Tibet. I like to think that I was once regarded as an old friend of both those areas.
First, I should like to say a word about China itself, not in the direct context of the relations with Hong Kong, although closely relevant to them. There is no prospect of China going the way of the Soviet Union; but eventually democracy will come there and it may come much more quickly than some of us suspect. In the meantime, not only in Shanghai, which has been making spectacular leaps forward in the past few years, but everywhere, private enterprise is springing up. There is increasing private investment, with tax holidays for foreigners. In Guangdong, that vast province to the north of China with 65 million inhabitants, the progress in the past 10 years has been

227
faster than in any similar state or quasi-state in the whole world; and it is going on. That is typical of what is happening in China. This permeation of private enterprise and investment throughout China will quite soon have its effect in resulting in a more democratic system.
I want to speak about Hong Kong. I returned 10 days ago from a fortnight there. I was very impressed by the strength of opinion in the professional, business and industrial community; and this before the slump in the stock exchange. The general opinion in those communities was clearly against the Governor's proposals. Unfortunately, the Governor had no time to see me but I did see a large number of people; and I saw also the chief Chinese representative, who is virtually the ambassador for China in Hong Kong. I had a long and quite exciting discussion with him.
I formed two clear conclusions: first, that the Governor was, if I may say so respectfully, right in casting off the white uniform and the plumed hat and casting himself more as a British provincial MP seeking to know and be recognised by his constituents and regarded as their friend. That has been a most useful move on his part. Where, on the other hand, I am equally convinced he is wrong is that in doing this he has adopted the hustings mode of British politics, suitable perhaps for the British politician in Bath—not always successfully—but quite unfamiliar to Beijing.
I am sure, again respectfully, that the Governor is sincere, as has been said, but I believe him to be sincerely wrong which is the most dangerous form of wrongness. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of diplomatic relationships and etiquette would have known how jealous the Chinese are of their sovereign status, their independence and of sticking to principles once they have been agreed. Sarcasm and innuendo, the small change of British politics, are unacceptable to Chinese culture and etiquette.
I have read the Joint Declaration of 1984 and the Basic Law of 1990 together—some noble Lords may not have had the opportunity of this—with what the lawyers call travaux preparatoires, which are very important in interpreting the two basic documents. Taken as a whole, they constituted a veritable triumph of statesmanship, diplomacy and common sense, ensuring that for the next 50 years Hong Kong should not merely retain all its own rights and freedoms, with no socialism and no communism, but that its laws would remain basically unchanged and that democracy would be introduced by stated steps, in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress which is—if I may use the word used by the noble Lord—enshrined in the Basic Law, with the ultimate object, in a comparatively short time, of ensuring that all elections to the Legislative Council are by universal suffrage. It is a result which might possibly have been achieved in as little as 10 years if things had gone smoothly.
Over and over again one finds in those documents emphasis placed on gradual progress and the maintenance of stability. All that seems to have been abandoned by the Governor's method of approaching the matter and his use of the megaphone. Although
228
that long address he made early in October to the LEGCO had room for minute details, even about the location of water fountains, there was nothing about co-operation and agreement with China, no mention of the liaison group which had been set up for the express purpose of discussing and resolving differences of opinion, if they arose, about matters of that kind. On the contrary, he appeared to be boasting that he had not consulted China at all.
Although I believe that is the gravamen of the criticism of the Governor, it is not merely the manner of his presentation which is so unfortunate; the substance also violates the principles and, indeed, the letter of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Here I agree with the careful analysis which was made by the noble Lords, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke and Lord MacLehose. I shall not take time by repeating that analysis, but the Governor's proposals alter completely the number and basis of the electoral structure and, in particular, of the functional constituencies which have played such an important part in enabling expertise and knowledge to take part in the government of Hong Kong.
Similarly, there existed—this related to a small number, 10 I think—a special system by which 10 members were elected by a kind of elite Electoral Committee. Its objective was to ensure that senior people, with responsibility and experience in public life who would not have been willing to face the hurly burly of an ordinary election, could be elected. For that purpose they had a Select Committee to elect people experienced in their own right. That has all been altered, and that is a pity. It was a desirable objective, and it was an objective which we achieve in this country by elevating such people to your Lordships' House. In future those 10 members will he elected by the members of the local district boards, who are themselves elected. They will be able to nominate anyone, however inexperienced. What has happened is almost a complete switch over to direct suffrage for the whole of the Legislative Council.
The Joint Declaration contains no word about increasing democracy. The emphasis was on maintaining existing rights, and the laws were to be basically unchanged. Language does not lose its meaning when it is reproduced from a solemn international agreement in a British White Paper. That is what the agreement says. There can be no doubt that those proposals, if carried out, are inconsistent with the general understanding which had been built up: that they undermine the Joint Declaration; and contravene the Basic Law. It is only—this is a very important point—if they do not contravene the Basic Law that the constitution and composition of the LEGCO can be continued after 1997. That element of continuity in the LEGCO is a matter of the utmost importance.
Another point that worries me a little is the apparent attempt to internationalise the dispute. Why make those frequent propaganda peregrinations abroad? Previous famous Governors never did so. Are we willing to contemplate the possibility of another Cold War arising—this time between the Western democracies and Asia? I am convinced that those changes in what is contemplated are not so

229
far-reaching and fundamental that they could not have been the subject of friendly discussion and some consensus with the Chinese, if only the Governor had raised them first in the Joint Liaison Committee which, by the Joint Declaration, he is required to do. It was set up expressly for that purpose. If agreement could not be reached in the Joint Liaison Committee, the matter had to be referred to joint consultations between the two governments. They are consultations which would no doubt have taken place without all the glare of publicity which has unfortunately occurred. Cannot we get back to quiet but serious negotiation? Governor Patten thinks that Chinese statements that they will reverse his proposals if Hong Kong enacts them are empty threats. That is the phrase he used. That was not the view of the Foreign Secretary when fewer than two years ago he said:
"Those who suggest that whatever we do now the Chinese will be bound to accept in 1997 are out of touch with reality".
It was also our Foreign Secretary who said on the same occasion that he attached:
"great importance to achieving an understanding between our two Governments and to re-establishing the atmosphere of mutual trust in which our two Governments have worked together. I realise that the Chinese Government has approached this matter in the same spirit".
I am convinced that there is still time to drop the megaphone and the slanging. Quiet meetings, possibly between the two Prime Ministers, could resolve those matters, which would save face, and the saving of face is not important to one side only, face has to be saved on both sides, even if it involves some recognition that the better is sometimes the enemy of the good. So we might avoid the ruin which now threatens our relationship and the future of Hong Kong itself. The Chinese could easily switch their policy to support Singapore, to support Thailand and trade there and, as I said at the beginning of my observations, to support their own remarkable development in Shanghai.
I am a firm believer in the democratic system, no one could be more so. But one must admit that so far in the Asiatic countries it has not always been a conspicuous success. After all, although we were responsible for Hong Kong which has been under our sole rule ever since 1844, it was only when we had agreed to hand it over to China that we became interested in democracy. Only 22 per cent. of the electorate took the trouble to vote in the 1991 election —a rather feeble demonstration of the enthusiasm for democracy which is said suddenly to exist.
I beg those who have so belatedly thought of democracy for Hong Kong to remember that democracy cannot be built in a day. It took the United Kingdom four centuries to build up democracy and there are even some—although I do not agree with them - who think that in this House the process has not yet been completed! We cannot do it in a day.
That is all I wish to say except to end on a purely personal note. I deeply regret having to take this line because the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, has, as a senior member of EXCO, taken a different view. She is a very old personal friend of mine who has rendered incalculable service to the politics and commerce of
230
Hong Kong and I greatly respect her view. Of course, she knows far more about the colony than I can pretend to, but from what she said I think that she agrees with me that the best thing we can do about the affair now is to play it down. Let us play it down as much as we can and return to the more placid but perhaps more promising waters of diplomatic consultation.
I regret also having to differ from my noble friend Lady Thatcher who, as Prime Minister at the time, was responsible for the successful and statesmanlike arrangements to hand Hong Kong back to the Chinese. Other noble Lords and I have already referred to those arrangements. Of course, I greatly admired the smack of firm government which she gave us on a number of other matters.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, this is an exceedingly timely debate and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Geddes on having introduced it now and on the excellent speech with which he did so. He has been able to attract a most interesting and formidable array of speakers. The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, was particularly impressive.
Not least of the advantages of the debate is the opportunity it gives us to hear some Hong Kong opinion. I am delighted, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, was able to be here with us. Rarely can Hong Kong opinion have felt that so many people wanted to hear it as today.
Indeed, Hong Kong's politicians must find themselves under considerable pressure as their demands for more democracy, as interpreted and put into concrete form by the Governor, provoked such a furious reaction in Peking. I hope that Mr. Patten will not make any precipitate retreat on the proposals which he has put forward. They are not in breach, I believe, of the 1984 Joint Declaration, under the terms of which Britain remains fully sovereign over Hong Kong until 1997, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher pointed out in her powerful speech of support for the Governor. So I find him quite entitled to put forward the proposals which he has.
Since Mr. Patten had to put forward proposals for the 1995 elections and how they were to be conducted —as my noble friend Lady Chalker explained, detailed electoral arrangements were not laid down by the Basic Law—I personally consider that the courageous choice which he made to introduce a greater measure of democracy by remaining within the terms of the 1984 Declaration was the right one. The demand for democracy in Hong Kong is something which has been growing since the 1970s and has gathered pace in recent years, and again in recent months, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, pointed out.
The Joint Declaration provides that eventually the legislature should be entirely constituted by election. The British Government sought a greater role for democracy in the transition years during their negotiations with Peking at the time the Basic Law was being adopted, as the recently published correspondence of that time has freshly demonstrated.

231
We argued then that we needed a greater measure of democracy to ensure that our ability to administer Hong Kong was not eroded. The Governor has now felt himself honour bound to introduce no less a degree of democracy than that for which a majority of people in Hong Kong were themselves calling (a policy to which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, in her closing remarks was asking him to adhere), seeing it as a means which could offer protection to Hong Kong and its way of life after 1997—in just the same way, surely, as the Prime Minister felt himself honour bound to pursue human rights issues when he went to Peking to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on the airport.
As for the reaction from Peking, this seems, to say the least, intemperate. The Basic Law states China's commitment after 1997 to one country, two systems; socialism is explicitly banished. But if China persists in her inordinate objection to these proposals, one of whose main effects is to introduce for certain seats broadly based electorates, typical of all democracies today, in place of narrow electorates which are open to manipulation, doubts can only be sown with regard to China's intention to honour that commitment in the Basic Law.
It cannot be in China's interests to affront international opinion by persisting in an exaggerated reaction to the Governor's proposals. China today provides the extraordinary spectacle of the world's greatest economic boom; moreover, one which depends on the rapid integration of her economy into the world economy. As the Economist recently pointed out, no other large country has so deliberately opened itself to foreign investment as an instrument of growth, with already a quarter of China's manufactured exports being accounted for by overseas financed ventures.
Foreign capital floods into China, largely through Hong Kong. China wants admission to GATT and depends on the annual renewal of her most favoured nation status by the United States. Her relations with the incoming democratic administration in the United States, one which is particularly concerned with human rights, are not yet established. It is hard to imagine China—modern, practical, successful China—putting all that at risk.
As regards some of the looser threats China has made, it surely makes no sense for her to flout or tear up the Joint Declaration, the one instrument which gives China sovereignty over Hong Kong in five years' time. The Governor's proposals were endorsed last month by the Legislative Council by a majority of three to two. Draft legislation should go before it early next year.
The Governor will have to decide what course to take if Hong Kong opinion drifts away from him. I believe that we should leave the matter to his judgment. He has behaved with considerable skill and adroitness. He avoided challenging Peking over the number of directly elected seats, where its opposition was well known, or by the appointment of legislative councillors to the Executive Council unacceptable to Peking.
232
He successfully won international endorsement for his proposals from the United States State Department, the Canadian Prime Minister, the Australian Government and even cautiously from Japan. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out to your Lordships the last time we debated this subject, the Governor is tough, as a wider audience has now had the opportunity to see. He has many talents, literary and otherwise, and openness is his style. The days of the deals behind closed doors are surely over.
Having given Hong Kong one of our foremost politicians—one, incidentally, whom many of us feel we can ill afford to lose at home—the least we can now do is to stand by him and support his imaginative proposals. His task was never going to be an easy one. He has to reconcile the long-term interests and the current morale of the people of Hong Kong with our treaty obligations and our sense of honour, which means that we must be true to our principles. He would never have been sent there if the task had been simple. Let us hope that the path of moving forward by agreement with China to a smooth hand-over, and the achievement of that remarkable agreement contained within the Joint Declaration, can be found once again, and that we do not have to wait too long.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I too want to support the proposals of the Governor of Hong Kong. I must admit to a personal interest in the subject since I partly grew up in Hong Kong. I remember well in the 1960s having a good friend, Anthony Elliot, who was a political adviser and who was tragically killed a few years later in an accident when he was ambassador to Israel. I saw a lot of him at the time of the Cultural Revolution, and remember him telling me how the Hong Kong Government had pacified crowds of chanting Maoist youths by blaring pop music from loud speakers specially installed on all the main government buildings. I thought it then, as I do now, a fine example of imaginative statesmanship.
In the early 1980s I was one of those who favoured letting sleeping dogs lie. I believed then, and I still believe, that had the British Government not publicly raised the issue of the future legal status of Hong Kong, it might have been possible to negotiate an extension of the lease. That is a matter of judgment to which no conclusive answer can be given, and the Foreign Office concluded otherwise.
However, the main issue today is the current crisis with China arising from the Governor's constitutional proposals announced on 8th October. China's vociferous opposition to the key proposals in that package has created the present tension, particularly its opposition to lowering the voting age to 18, removing members of the Executive Council from the Legislative Council, increasing from 10 to 20 the number of geographical constituencies each with a directly-elected single member, and finally creating nine new functional seats resting on a much broader basis of occupations than the existing 21 seats do.
The net result of these reforms will be to create, for the first time in 1995, a wholly-elected Legislative

233
Council which is elected both indirectly and directly. The fine balances between directly and indirectly-elected members, as well as the disproportionate influence retained by the business community, make it far from being a democratic assembly as understood in the west. Also, the Governor remains accountable to the British Government and not to the legislative assembly. But the proposals represent a significant broadening of the democratic base in Hong Kong. They will create a frame-work for representative government to develop, though they do not create representative government itself. It is for these reasons that they have incurred China's wrath.
I do not think at issue today is the question whether representative government is good or bad. We all came to our conclusion on that matter several hundred years ago in this country. It is whether or not, in the peculiar circumstances that face Hong Kong, the Governor's proposals offer the best chance of underpinning the guarantee of administrative autonomy, personal freedom and commercial stability embodied in the Joint Declaration of 1984 and the Basic Law of 1989.
The Chinese Government has made it clear which it wants to inherit the existing colonial system of Hong Kong with as few modifications as possible. It wants a chief executive which it will appoint to succeed to all the powers currently enjoyed by the British Governor appointed in London. It fears the advent of responsible government in Hong Kong just as it fears the advent of responsible government in China.
It has now promised to dismantle a Legislative Council elected according to the Governor's principles. The Chinese Government's hostility to Mr. Patten has given the business community the jitters and put a question mark over commercial projects such as the proposed airport. I am not concerned with the narrow question of whether Mr Patten's proposals breach the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law or the 1990 Agreement. These statements of principles will always be subject to different interpretations.
The real issue was put by Sir Percy Cradock in The Times on 1st December this year. The issue is whether,
"pushing on with the present constitutional proposals in face of a violent Chinese opposition will do Hong Kong … more harm than good in the long run."
Sir Percy clearly believes that it will.
The Governor's proposals have also been opposed by a large section of Hong Kong's business community. We have heard about the fall of the Hang Seng index. Part of this fear, it must be noted, is the fear of democracy itself. Mr. T.S. Lo, a prominent Hong Kong citizen and tipped by some to be the first chief executive appointed by China, has raised the spectre of a blue-collar dictatorship as a result of these modest proposals.
But Mr. Lo also sees the proposals as jeopardising Hong Kong's future as a centre of a dynamic South China. He wrote on 23rd October:
"The Government should look at the bigger picture of Hong Kong as a leader of South China and creating this area of 40 million people which will drive the rest of Asia for the next 20 years."
234
Look at it in that light and not as an isolated and threatened enclosure that needs to be protected by local democracy. This is the great prize that many Hong Kong businessmen see, and it is a great prize. And how awkward, inappropriate and annoying that a western politician should step in with his inappropriate political ideas, which, as we have heard several times this afternoon, have never been accepted in Asia anyway.
I believe that many of those who share Mr. Lo's vision believe that the way to secure Hong Kong's future lies not so much with the Sino-British agreements already reached, much less with the Governor's proposals, but by doing deals. I do not mean commercial, I mean political deals with those who hold power in Peking. It must be remembered that many, if not most, of those in Hong Kong have close family and communal connections with the mainland, and genuinely see themselves as part of one country with two systems.
Nevertheless, I believe this approach to be profoundly mistaken. For all its glorious economic prospects, the political stability of China cannot be guaranteed. It is not just that the whole of Chinese history has been marked by oscillations between order and disorder. There must also be a profound question about the survival of the one major communist political system left in the world. If that regime collapses, there will be no smooth transition to a more liberal government, any more so than there has been in Russia, but a disintegration of central authority: Peking split into warring factions and possibly China reverting to an ancient pattern of warlordism.
Who then is Hong Kong to do its deals with? To which group of potentates will businessmen turn to protect their future? If central authority breaks down Hong Kong may well continue as a commercial centre —I do not believe that is actually in doubt—but the quality and security of commercial life will surely deteriorate, with adverse effects on investment and trade.
In such circumstances, the existence of an orderly self-renewing structure of government in Hong Kong, one which does not depend on a power struggle going on in the rest of China, would come to be seen as the height of prudent anticipation. But even if China remains stable, the lessons of politics and history should not be forgotten and I think they transcend all differences of culture.
"Put not your trust in princes"
is a very serviceable maxim. Currying favour with despots has never been a successful recipe for longevity. The very rich will no doubt still be able to leave after 1997, but millions will be trapped.
So I believe that Mr. Patten's instinct is a sound one. At the very least, the creation of a framework for responsible government makes it more difficult for China to intervene arbitrarily in Hong Kong's affairs. Destruction of a fledgling democracy is a highly visible act and no longer much admired in the rest of the world. It will call forth universal condemnation, which will be reflected in financial and commercial relations, and it will have an adverse effect on those relations which China is trying to build up.

235
However, for Mr. Patten's initiative to have these benign consequences, I think that a further step might be needed. It must be seen as unambiguously expressing the will of Hong Kong's population. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, has emphasised that the choice of the pattern of Hong Kong's future constitutional relations with China should be decided by the Hong Kong people themselves. The Governor, she says, must be prepared to go as far as the community wants, and no further. But what is it that the community wants? I do not believe that we know. Soundings have apparently proved favourable, but the elections for direct seats in 1990–91 only produced 40 per cent. of the votes of those registered to vote.
I ask the Governor to consider the possibility of testing Hong Kong opinion directly by holding a referendum on his proposals. If the Hong Kong people reject his proposals, he should withdraw them. If they endorse them, he should press on. He owes it to them to give a clear choice as to how they want their constitutional relationship with China to develop. Let them judge the economic consequences of their own political choice.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, it is with diffidence that I offer some observations in this important and timely debate, because so many speakers this afternoon have much more experience of, and a greater insight into, these matters than I have. That must be only too obvious. When I commanded the British Forces in Hong Kong in the 1970s, I too sat at the feet of my noble friend Lord MacLehose during his most distinguished governorship, and from him I learned a great deal. I can only hope that perhaps just some of his wisdom about Hong Kong's affairs may have rubbed off.
If I may, I should like to deal with just two matters. The first is one that has concerned so many other speakers: whether the constitutional development package proposed by the Governor with the full support of his Legislative Council is likely to be helpful in the run-up to the 1997 transfer of sovereignty. Secondly—and here of course I am on safer ground—I should like to say something about security in Hong Kong. As regards both issues, I am only too well aware that observations and even warnings made perfectly appropriately in private may not always be that helpful in public because of the misrepresentation and wrong signals which they may inadvertently invoke. Therefore, like many other noble Lords, I have tried to choose my words with care.
I approach the first matter as soldiers invariably approach all such problems—in a rather simplistic way. I simply ask: what is the aim of the whole exercise? I will attempt to answer the question by saying—and my noble friend Lord Wilson in his brilliant maiden speech touched on this—that I presume the overall aim, although others may see it differently, is to lead positively and optimistically a solvent and economically confident, relatively contented, Hong Kong into a totally new but nonetheless
236
very exciting relationship with China, in which Hong Kong becomes for 50 years an autonomous zone of that country: one country but two systems.
I am not suggesting, particularly with all that is happening in the rest of the world, that this is not a big and, to some, very traumatic step; but if it works, as I believe it can, it is a good and advantageous arrangement offering considerable opportunities for the people of Hong Kong in the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pointed out. However, if it is to work we will require mutual trust and strict adherence on both sides to the spirit as well as the letter of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law; all under the watchful eye of the international trading community, which will be quick to react if things go wrong. I think it is all agreed that any serious and lasting disagreement between China and Hong Kong is bound to be harmful to the territory, to business confidence and, in the long term, as has been said, to China itself.
The question we have to ask ourselves, and indeed have been asking ourselves all afternoon, is: does this broadening of the Hong Kong people's participation in their own affairs—something which was unthinkable in the days when I was in Hong Kong—and the proposed, albeit modest, extension of democracy make the overall aim easier or more difficult to achieve?
It might of course prove helpful; in the sense that if it made the people of Hong Kong more contented or more confident of their own future it might just heighten morale in what is bound to be a difficult transitional period. It could be argued, and indeed has been argued by some, that with so many people crying out for more democracy all over the world then, if the people of Hong Kong really want it, that is the least that we in the United Kingdom can do while we still have the power to do so. If, however, the aim is, as I have suggested, the smooth and untroubled transfer of sovereignty, with both sides respecting their side of the agreement, rather than a perceived opportunity to get Parliament off the Governor's back, or to give full expression to those who over the years and 8,000 miles away have advocated things for the people of Hong Kong without any responsibility for the consequences of that advice, or even to prove that we cannot be pushed around, then what is being advocated is inevitably something of a high-risk strategy.
Naturally, I hope that the Governor will succeed in pulling it off, because a complete U-turn might produce its own dangers and difficulties. We must rely on his judgment. Personally, I cannot see why the Chinese would, in practice, have anything to fear from the people of Hong Kong having a more direct say in managing their own internal and local affairs in what, after all, after 1997 will be an autonomous zone for 50 years if the Chinese keep their side of the agreement. It does not imply any direct democratic changes in the main policy-making body, the Executive Council. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the Chinese Government seem to have slightly over-reacted. I would certainly hope and expect that in secret diplomacy, if such a thing is possible these days, and through a two-way dialogue, the Governor would

237
use all his political astuteness and diplomatic negotiating skill to reassure the Chinese on this point and get some mutual accord.
It must be recognised that China, rightly or wrongly, harbours three main anxieties about the way in which matters are developing. Noble Lords may say that the first two are so far-fetched—as my noble friend Lady Dunn mentioned—that we should have no difficulty in refuting them. Those are: first, that we intend to exhaust Hong Kong's financial reserves and hand the colony over in a bankrupt condition; and, secondly, that at the eleventh hour, from their so-called democratic base, the people of Hong Kong will appeal to the world over the heads of Britain and China for self-determination and the annulment of the agreement. Apart from its impracticability, there would be no international support for such a move.
The third concern is that after 1997 a democratic Hong Kong would try to act as a launching pad for changing China's political system before it is ready to do so. I am sure that that change will come one day and, unlike in Russia, in the wake of the economic reform which is taking place all the time. We must be careful that what we do in Hong Kong over the next four to five years, particularly in 1995, does not give more credence to that anxiety than it deserves. Noble Lords may say that political change in China is long overdue. That may be so, but for it to be precipitated from one part of what will then be its own country would be something that China could not possibly accept in the context of one country, two systems.
Whatever happens, the Governor must be supported. Nothing could be worse for the equilibrium of Hong Kong than, as the Chinese would say, for the mandarin's crown to seem to be slipping from him and for him not to have the backing of this country. But if he is wrong about his relations with China, or even if he is right, and the Chinese cannot be persuaded to see the matter in his way, the situation in Hong Kong could become very awkward over the next crucial years. There is, after all, more than one way of killing a cat.
That brings me to the security of the territory for which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, pointed out, we and we alone are responsible. The admirable Hong Kong police who, it has to be recognised, may become increasingly vulnerable as 1997 approaches, have recently taken on the time-consuming and manpower-intensive control of illegal immigration which was previous handled by the British Armed Forces. That commitment could easily increase. The police have also had to contend with a rising tide of armed crime and Triad activities, some of it now fuelled by gangster activity from over the border. In any case, for as long as I can remember it has always been necessary in any significant disturbances in Hong Kong, particularly if politically motivated as they were during the Cultural Revolution and could be again, for the police to be backed and supported by the Armed Forces in order to keep the situation fully under control.
Therefore, I hope that there will be no premature run-down of the garrison and that the principle of
238
"stronger for longer" will apply. Otherwise, the Hong Kong police could have their work cut out. We would be abrogating our responsibilities for maintaining law and order and handing over a stable Hong Kong. The business community could lose confidence. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance on that point.
The present garrison can easily be thinned out very quickly in the final months of British rule; and I would not say that there may not have to be discussions about who picks up any extra cost that that may entail. But I sincerely hope that we shall not weaken the garrison just because what one reputable newspaper described as that "cosy dialogue" between the Ministry of Defence mandarins and the Treasury suggests, as I suspect is the case in relation to other international situations, that "you must run down earlier, otherwise that Options for Change exercise will have to be amended and the manpower ceiling for the British Army will have to be increased, and that would never do".
Options for Change has been shown to have, as they say in another context, serious fault lines. Army manpower is now manifestly inadequate and unworkable. There has been enough of putting heads in the sand over defence matters already without it being extended to the delicate and potentially dangerous situation in Hong Kong.
Therefore, I hope that His Excellency the Governor will think most carefully about the concept and implementation of any constitutional reform, with China and the long-term whole very much in mind as well as Hong Kong in the shorter term, and, come what may—and I hope that it will not come to anything serious—that we shall remain strong enough in Hong Kong to ensure stability there until our responsibilities are fully discharged.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Geddes for introducing this very timely debate. I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, on his excellent maiden speech. We were very fortunate to hear the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, was not able to be here, particularly because that was due to illness, as my noble friend Lord Geddes explained.
My contribution to the debate will be from the point of view of trade. I have many years' experience of trading in and through Hong Kong. My experience of China has been as a predecessor of my noble friend Lord Sharp as President of the Sino-British Trade Council from 1973 to 1983. Your Lordships will probably remember that that period stretched from the end of the Cultural Revolution—a very interesting period—through the economic developments steered by the Prime Minister, Chou En-lai. I saw economic developments and liberalisation take place in China over a very interesting period.
I remember a saying circulating at that time that in China events take two steps forward and then one step backwards. That was exactly what happened. Every

239
year there were changes one way or the other. That still holds today and I hope that we may find that that principle will apply in relation to the problem we are debating. I am proud to say that I think that I am still regarded as an old friend of China, and I speak from that standpoint.
From that background in trade I turn to the position of Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been built up by trade from a population of a few hundred people some 150 years ago to what it is today. Trade has brought prosperity; trade has provided a standard of living as high as anywhere in the world; and trade has created a communication system on land, on sea, in the air, and through the airwaves. Britain can be proud of the changes and developments which have taken place under its administration, coupled with the wonderful enterprise and dynamism of the people of Hong Kong. Long may that continue.
It is of vital interest to British trade that that should continue. Hong Kong is a very important market. We are in an excellent position there, because of language, conditions of trade, contract law, understanding and technical standards. It is a fine base from which to develop into China. It has been mentioned in the debate how that has developed over the years. We have seen trade penetrate through the special economic zone of Shenhzen into southern China. It will penetrate even further. Therefore, let us not forget the interests of both British industry and Hong Kong in maintaining that developing position.
China itself is an enormous market. That has been emphasised by a number of speakers during the course of the debate. It is a market in which we must participate in the years ahead. It is potentially one of the world's biggest growth areas. On the other hand, it is a long-term development. One has to stay there and one has to work there. I believe that my noble friend Lord Sharp will agree with me that we have many friends in China.
However, it must be recognised that we also have a great many strong competitors. They want a share of that market; they want our share if they can get it. We have to cultivate the area for our long-term future. It is not a short-term matter. Five years is no time at all; we are talking about 20, 25 or 30 years. British industry must participate in that market over the years ahead. It needs that business. In my opinion we can do it. All three countries have a joint interest in gaining an understanding out of this difficult situation which will retain the trading position of this country in Hong Kong and China, and at the same time retain the trading position between Hong Kong and China. That will be of vital importance for the people of Hong Kong.
The first priority must be to safeguard the future of Hong Kong so far as we are able to do so. But let our negotiators not forget that we must also safeguard the British trading position in Hong Kong and the British long-term trading position in China.
I make one final point that has not been mentioned; namely, the position of Taiwan. My experience is that China always has one eye on Taiwan. It wishes for unification. It wishes for something similar to what has happened in Germany. It will be looking very
240
carefully to ensure that the developing situation in Hong Kong proves that "one country and two systems" can live together. If that is not proven in Hong Kong, the situation will never arise in Taiwan. That is something very important to China.
I ask my noble friend the Minister when she replies to say something about the Government's thinking on our trading position in these two areas. Many people will be anxious to hear what she has to say about this matter, particularly the many businessmen and business traders who are developing, or trying to retain and develop this important market under the difficult conditions existing at the present time.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I have no business interest to declare in Hong Kong or China. Indeed, I have never been to China. My reason for speaking is twofold. First, it was my ancestor, Captain Charles Elliot, who persuaded the Chinese to cede Hong Kong to Britain. He had been sent out to the Far East to bring the Opium Wars to an end and to safeguard the interests of British subjects in Canton. However, on his return he was dismissed from government service by Lord Palmerston, who regarded Hong Kong as no more than a barren rock. Secondly, there is my great love for Hong Kong, where I spent nearly two years as a young officer attached to the Gurkhas in 1966 and 1967, during a period of great instability in Hong Kong and China.
I have returned many times to Hong Kong, marvelling at the dramatic changes. I was last there in October, as part of the All-Party Defence Group, arriving just two days after the Governor's address to the Legislative Council.
I had desperately hoped to support the Governor, who started so well. However, I have reservations. I am concerned for Hong Kong's 5 million people, whose welfare depends on Sino-British co-operation.
I agree with several other speakers that it was the manner in which these proposals were announced that infuriated Beijing. Under the Joint Declaration, the Governor was under an obligation to consult the Chinese. This has happened successfully through diplomatic channels since 1984. But they were presented with a public fact. In an area where face is everything, that ensured a hostile response. I look forward to the Minister's comments on this point.
I carefully read the Joint Declaration, which is the agreed basis for the future, and the Basic Law. I also read the exchange of letters in 1990, which were made public and which several other speakers have mentioned, between the Foreign Secretaries. Although the Chinese are attaching far too much importance to small discrepancies, agreements have been broken in spirit and in letter, particularly in relation to the electoral base for both expanded functional constituency representation and the proposed Election Committee.
In 1990 OMELCO members arrived at a consensus and recommended that in 1995 half the legislature should be directly elected. But that was publicly rejected by Her Majesty's Government with the answer that there must be a convergence with the

241
Basic Law and Chinese wishes on the pace of democracy. Like the Chinese, I am puzzled by the change of policy and I hope the Minister will comment on this point.
The Chinese have made it abundantly clear that if these proposals are implemented they will dismantle the present legislature and set up their own in 1997. Mr Patten returns in 1997, but the people of Hong Kong will have to make the best of what he has left them.
The Governor hopes to set up the new Legislative Council and allow it to work quietly so that the Chinese accept it as a fait accompli. But the Chinese will find ways to undermine a body which they consider was not part of the agreement made with the United Kingdom. Armed with a watertight excuse after 1997 they will then dismantle it, glad of a pretext for a safer system. After Tiananmen Square, it should be obvious to anyone that Beijing will stop at nothing to suppress a domestic political challenge.
We would all like Hong Kong to enjoy more democracy, but pursuing the present constitutional proposals in the face of Chinese opposition will only make Hong Kong suffer. A smooth transition maintaining stability and prosperity is also important. The large and successful Hong Kong companies, which tread the difficult middle ground between being loyal to Britain and to China, are put in an impossible position. The business community, which is so important for Hong Kong, is turning against the Governor. The proposals risk the possibility of China not only reneging after 1997 on all contracts, leases and agreements signed without its approval, but also setting up a shadow administration across the border to vet contracts. This would paralyse the Hong Kong Government for the last few years of British rule.
The situation is now deadlocked. Agreements were made between Britain and China, and must be addressed at the highest level from this country. Surely talks must be held, as a matter of urgency, in private, out of the international arena, to clear up the very small misunderstandings and discrepancies that divide us. Slight modifications—no U-turn—will be necessary to be more acceptable to China. I am sure that the majority of Hong Kong citizens would welcome them.
I sincerely hope and believe that the Chinese, who are not blameless in the current situation, would themselves be flexible and enable a smooth transition to take place in a spirit of co-operation, not confrontation.
Finally, with all the uncertainty in Hong Kong, I hope that the Government will reconsider any plans to speed up the run down of our military garrison. As my noble friend Lady Thatcher, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, we must remember that we are responsible for the lives of all 5 million Hong Kong Chinese, the international community of 250,000 and the families of the remaining troops, right up to 1st July 1997. I do not believe that that current garrison has sufficient troops to implement its contingency plans without reinforcement. We must not be tempted to bolster a shortage of troops elsewhere with troops from the Hong Kong garrison.
242
Noble Lords may not be aware that members of the People's Liberation Army may conduct a two-day exercise close to Hong Kong involving three divisions of troops and eight warships. Its scenario is the capture of Hong Kong in six hours without a shot being fired, the British being unable to control the colony after a breakdown of law and order. I hope and believe that that will never become a reality. I was delighted by assurances given to me in the recent defence debate by my noble friend Lord Cranborne that the Government are aware of their military responsibilities to Hong Kong.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for initiating the debate and for giving us the opportunity to hear the distinguished maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. It is always important to show the Hong Kong people that we care for their welfare. At the same time we must be conscious that at delicate moments we must choose our words with care. Above all, this is not the moment to justify past actions or to argue about what might have been. I am not even sure that it is the moment to argue about whether the Governor might have played his hand differently. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has just reminded us, our overriding priority is to say nothing which might undermine the Governor's future authority.
I declare an interest because of my close business connections with Hong Kong. However, I wish to make it clear that the views which I express are strictly my own. Indeed, I urge your Lordships to listen sceptically to claims made by some to speak for the business community as a whole. Your Lordships will have noticed that the most important business leaders in Hong Kong have refrained from making public statements. That is because they believe that debate by megaphone is not useful.
I do not intend to dwell again on the detail of China's economic advance, already brilliantly summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I wish to stress the nature as well as the extent of the major change that has taken place since the Joint Declaration, in particular in the past two years. Even two or three years ago it was true to say that China was not only politically unreformed but that from the point of view of British business practices it was 100 years behind the times. Mainland Chinese businesses could not prosper because of the doctrinal restrictions imposed by Beijing. Although Hong Kong's prosperity therefore depended on its proximity to China, that was true only while its commercial, economic and financial framework was totally outside the Chinese system. Two systems were essential not only politically but also financially and economically.
That is now changing fast because China has changed its economic system. The introduction in China of a market economy—in parts of South China a more unregulated, rip-roaring market economy than London's or New York's—means that, while the need for separate political systems remains as great as ever, from a business point of view Hong Kong now has a

243
self-interest in being as closely intermeshed with China mainland business as possible. Many in Hong Kong believe that whatever happens politically, the economic transformation of China is now unstoppable. It was put to me several times in Hong Kong last week that in a world context China's economic advance will over the next 20 years probably equal that of Japan since the Second World War.
The relative importance of Europe, and even perhaps of the United States, is seen as declining fast and the promise of the future is seen to lie in Asia. During a busy round of meetings in Hong Kong last week I did not hear Europe mentioned once. This has changed the whole focus of debate.
This change in China means that Hong Kong faces a new challenge—that of competing for the first time on more equal terms against other Chinese business centres; for instance, Guandong, Shanghai, Shenzhen and other special economic zones.
It is true that Hong Kong has three advantages. The first is its deep water harbour—an enduring advantage. The second is its vastly superior business infrastructure, light years ahead of other Chinese cities, but with the gap likely to narrow rapidly as other cities are allowed for the first time to use their entrepreneurial talents. The third is its political freedoms and lack of government interference, which in the long run are essential for continued growth.
Nonetheless, Hong Kong, lying offshore China, has some similarities to Britain lying offshore Europe. Britain has recognised that it will be difficult for us to remain a leading provider of services to Europe if we are outside the Community. So it will be increasingly difficult for Hong Kong to provide services to China in competition with centres inside the country if it is not an integral part of the system, at least economically.
The point I am trying to make, therefore, is that the fact that Hong Kong will become part of China is not all bad news. Politically of course the position is different. Certainly no Hong Kong Chinese I have ever met automatically equate democracy and prosperity. Experience has shown them that countries such as Taiwan and even Singapore where democracy is limited, and Hong Kong itself where it has been non-existent, have prospered more than many true democracies in Europe. What of course Hong Kong people do want is to continue enjoying the freedoms which they have enjoyed under the benevolent dictatorship of Britain—freedom of movement, of expression and of property ownership and independence of the legal system.
The real debate is about whether more democracy now, albeit within the framework of the Joint Declaration, is in present circumstances the best way of defending these freedoms. That is the question which the Governor is giving the people of Hong Kong the opportunity to decide for themselves. In my opinion successive British Governments since the war have fallen down totally on their duty to prepare Hong Kong politically for the time when they knew that British rule was bound to come to an end. Mr.
244
Patten has to live with that and the fact that the deadline of deciding how to conduct the 1995 elections is upon us, which is not of his making.
With the greatest respect, I cannot agree with the viewpoint put forward with great clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, that Mr. Patten's initiatives would have been more acceptable to China if the consultation process had been differently conducted. What the Chinese are really objecting to is not the detail of the Governor's proposals. It is the very fact of popular consultation which they fear.
That is the fundamental dilemma. China wishes to impose its views on Hong Kong. Britain does not wish to and should not try to. That is why the Governor has no choice but to open up the public debate as he has done. In reality that is all that he has done. He has opened it up by producing something to discuss. I do not necessarily differ from the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose—I dare not—in his assessment of the degree of democracy that can be achieved. But I do believe that the decision on how far to push must be taken by Hong Kong through LEGCO and not by Britain, and, as I understand it, that is what Mr. Patten is trying to do. Indeed, that is what he is insisting upon.
The problem with the Joint Declaration is rather the same as the problem with the Maastricht Treaty. It is so cleverly drafted that it is possible for the two sides to agree on every word of the text without there being any real agreement on what it means or on how it can be applied. The differences in culture, way of thinking and political processes between China and the West are so great that the same text actually means something totally different to each side. I suggest that the same problem is at the root of the Government's difficulties as regards Europe.
That does not mean that the Joint Declaration was a mistake or that we should have been better off without it. It means only, as its authors would admit, that it was necessarily far from perfect and its chickens are now coming home to roost. Political catchphrases like the "through train" can be misleading. Through trains are not even particularly desirable if the passengers do not wish to be aboard and if a new driver takes it off in the wrong direction. There is only one real through train possible and that is the growing integration of the two economies of Hong Kong and southern China. If that can continue, I am optimistic that much of the politics will fall into place.
7.2 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for introducing today's debate at a critical time in the transitional period up to Hong Kong's reincorporation into China. Indeed, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn on his outstanding maiden speech. It was an incisive maiden speech made without any notes on such a controversial issue but delivered in a non-controversial manner in conformity with the traditions of your Lordships' House.
My interest in Hong Kong and China spans back 10 years when I studied for my masters degree in

245
Chinese law at London University. It may be argued that there was no extensive Chinese law in those days but I wrote my thesis on the Hong Kong lease through the eyes of Beijing.
As my noble friend Lady Dunn explained in her moving speech, Britain and China have a heavy responsibility for Hong Kong. They also have a unique opportunity. The transformation of Hong Kong from a British colony into a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China should be a rare example of a truly successful decolonisation.
Success will obviously give both Governments an achievement of which they can be proud. Obviously, failure will reflect extremely badly on both Governments. I do not believe that there is any excuse for failure. As many noble Lords said, Hong Kong is setting an admirable example. It has not allowed any of the political disputes to deflect it from building its own future as part of China. The dramatic development of Hong Kong itself and of South China bears witness to Hong Kong's determination to succeed.
My principal concern, as it is that of many other noble Lords, is for the long-term stability of the almost 6 million people of Hong Kong. While I appreciate the sensitivities and concerns of China, I find it difficult to agree with those critics of his Excellency the Governor who claim, as some have put it, that he has approached the governance of the transitional period in Hong Kong like "a bull in a china shop".
Clearly one of the Governor's main responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong is to reassure them about what life might be like both leading up to and after 1997. In his own words in an article in The Times on 8th October he said that
"it is to safeguard Hong Kong's way of life—the way of life set out in page after page of the Joint Declaration—its free economy, its rule of law; its sound administration. All the things that, together, underpin Hong Kong's prosperity and stability".
Obviously vital to his role is the smooth transition of the colony to Chinese rule in 1997, a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. I believe sincerely that the governor's proposals for greater democracy in Hong Kong were not aimed at causing a confrontation with China. As I understand it, the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law entrenched a steady increase in democracy in Hong Kong both up to and after 1997. However, a number of issues needed fleshing out. In my view the governor's proposals can certainly not be seen as a radical change from the spirit of the Joint Declaration and are aimed, as he said, at being evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
My anxiety is that it appears futile to implement those proposals purely for the transitional period until 1997. For them to be of any value surely they must be for the period after 1997 as well? It is distressing that Prime Minister Li Peng and the Chinese authorities in Beijing have shown an unwillingness to come up with any counter proposals or compromise plans to the
246
governor's proposals. I fear that Beijing's intimidatory approach and threats to invalidate any Hong Kong Government contracts that they have not also approved once they take back Hong Kong in 1997, can only substantially undermine economic stability and growth which is totally counter productive both to China and Hong Kong. It will invariably lead to an escalation in the brain drain and—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—will deter international companies from doing business in China.
As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, mentioned in his opening speech, the mere fact that 70 per cent. of China's exports pass through Hong Kong, the fact that Hong Kong generates one third of China's foreign exchange as well as the enormous economic and social benefits that the special economic zone of Guangdong has gained from trade with Hong Kong all point to the futility of China running down Hong Kong. Therefore, I find it unseemly that Hong Kong's natural parent China and its foster parent Britain should find it so difficult to co-operate properly for the well being of Hong Kong whose interests they both claim to have at heart.
Suggestions and rumours had it that the Governor should use the renewal of the Most Favoured Nation —(MFN)—status to be negotiated in Washington next year as a leverage point with the Chinese authorities in Beijing in the negotiations over his proposals for further democratisation in Hong Kong. I welcome the fact that such a move has been denounced by the Governor, as I firmly believe that he is truly committed to consultation and good relations rather than confrontation with Beijing.
I also believe that the Governor's approach to spending more on social, welfare, education and environmental needs in Hong Kong is to be applauded.
Although much attention is focused on the Hong Kong stock market as a barometer of confidence, it is remarkable that as a community, Hong Kong has remained fairly calm in the face of the current crisis. Nevertheless, it is clear that China's recent actions have turned an increasingly jittery business community against the Governor as it sees its business interests threatened. It certainly looks probable that when the Legislative Council votes in February next year, it will vote against his proposals.
In conclusion, surely the world's oldest civilisation and the world's oldest democracy can make a better job of discharging their responsibilities than they are doing at present. There should been an end to recrimination and a start to proper negotiation.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow quite the same pattern as previous speakers in discussing the arrangements as between Hong Kong and China from now until 1997. My noble friend Lord Geddes has drawn his Motion sufficiently narrow yet sufficiently wide for me to embark upon another theme altogether. I shall not keep your Lordships long in developing that theme.

247
My noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford discussed quite shortly in his speech the position of Taiwan. When one looks at the position from the point of view of the Taiwanese, it is reasonable to note that they are gradually extending their economic democracy. While in no way wishing to become even more separative from mainland China, over the past few years more than half their businesses have returned to the private sector, and state-run businesses are diminishing at the rate of around 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum. That places them in a fairly powerful position. Whether or not the Chinese wish to encourage Taiwan to become a competitor to Hong Kong, there can be little doubt that they would like that country and that country's economic wealth to complement Hong Kong.
When one adds that to the industrialisation in the new territories in South China generally, one must accept that there is a massive commercial and economic impact and change already in force. In my view, since the Chinese mainland cannot quite accept the total market-driven economy that is evident both in Hong Kong and Taiwan, it may be many years before the change is completed and fully widespread. I believe that that economic change will spread; and others before me spoke of specific areas where it is already evident. But if China maintains socialism as its political philosophy I understand the term is "tinged with Chinese characteristics"—one must accept that a powerful force will emerge. I believe that China will become, perhaps in no more than 10 years, the most formidable economic, trading and indeed political force in South-East Asia. Whether its tentacles will spread further one can only speculate.
Therefore in looking at the problems discussed by many noble Lords this afternoon, we may reasonably look to China becoming the stabilising influence in South-East Asia. Whether or not the Chinese would wish to take on that onerous responsibility is another matter. I certainly believe that they should be so encouraged. It is essential that there should be a stabilising influence in South-East Asia. As we see across the world, it is becoming more unstable. As soon as the present difficulties are resolved and China can be encouraged to take up that responsibility, it will be for the better.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I add my thanks to those of others to my noble friend Lord Geddes for giving us the opportunity to conduct this debate. It has demonstrated the great interest in Hong Kong and the great sympathy that exists for it. That is shown by the kind of people who have spoken in the debate today. For me it was particularly exciting to hear my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, make an exceptionally brilliant maiden speech, and without a note. Although I suppose it was predictable that he should speak on Hong Kong in his maiden speech, I am sure that we shall hear him speak on many other issues in the future.
I should declare an interest in that I am an adviser to John Swire and Sons. Needless to say, the views I express in this debate are entirely my own. I should
248
like also to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the Front Bench as a foreign affairs spokesman. She made a most interesting speech, but I felt that it was rather paradoxical in that speaking for the party she does, she appeared to be so scared of the proposals that Mr. Patten has been putting forward to introduce democracy. Indeed, I was saddened that she should presume to use the phrase, "too clever by half" about Mr. Patten. It seemed ironical as I remember that phrase originally entering the political lexicon when used by an old political dinosaur, the Marquess of Salisbury, who was attacking lain Macleod for advocating the decolonisation of Africa. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness pointed out, she only recently became a spokesman on foreign affairs and I am sure that we shall hear splendid speeches from her in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, referred to the need to navigate between the rocks. One of the problems at the moment is that China seems to be making the navigation more difficult by laying a number of floating mines in the water. The danger of floating mines is that they can blow up your own ships. In that I am thinking specifically of Chinese suggestions of the possible abrogation of contracts relating to property and indeed other contracts.
I suspect that there are three elements in China's antagonism to Mr. Patten's proposals. The first is the horror that the Chinese feel at the fate of what they euphemistically call their northern neighbour—the former Soviet Union. I believe that China is right; it has concentrated on perestroika rather than on glasnost. I totally understand the fears of the Chinese leadership of a political vacuum which could come from internal political reform at too rapid a rate. Indeed, China herself had one of the most painful experiences of such anarchy in her long history during the Cultural Revolution. Fortunately, the inoculation of recent experiences tends at least to prevent them from recurring. At the time of the Cultural Revolution Hong Kong was at great risk. I would accept the Chinese view that Hong Kong might not survive more than a few weeks if such anarchy were to occur again. To the Chinese leadership keeping China together is the first great imperative of government.
Secondly I believe that China greatly resented the advocacy of political change inside China by the United Democrats led by Mr. Martin Lee shortly after they were elected to the Legislative Council. They won 16 of the 18 seats and started to talk—understandably in one sense as it followed Tiananmen Square—in a way which in my view was most unwise. After all, a rejection of the basic principle of "one country, two systems" is implied if China does not have her own political integrity respected by the people of Hong Kong. How then can the people of Hong Kong expect China to respect Hong Kong's political integrity? However, I hope that that episode is now water under the bridge. Incidentally, it was quite neat that Mr. Patten was able, by separating LEGCO from EXCO to ensure that Mr. Martin Lee could no longer have a claim on a seat on the Executive Council.
Thirdly, there is the understandable Chinese desire to counter the great personal popularity of the

249
Governor and his novel political style. But that is surely all part of the negotiating posture. There are differences of approach to negotiating with China. There have been those in this debate who have suggested that Mr. Patten's policy is too high risk and that to antagonise China is of itself counter-productive. I respect China too much to believe that she would risk abrograting the 1984 treaty. However, that is what Sir Percy Cradock clearly does believe in his much quoted letter to The Times of 26th November.
Sir Percy epitomises one traditional Foreign Office view—not, I believe, a view shared by all senior Foreign Office officials past or present—that Sino-British relations are of paramount importance to the extent that difficulties over Hong Kong must not be allowed to damage them. On the contrary, I believe that it is Hong Kong which is of paramount importance to British relations with China. I would go so far as to say that there is no other aspect of China's relations with the rest of the world which is of greater importance than the maintenance of prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and the orderly transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997.
I well remember that in the early days of the negotiations which led to the 1984 agreement, the Foreign Office's position seemed to be, "We want the best agreement that we can get; but we must have an agreement". At that stage there was really little incentive for China to make any concessions. It was relatively late—I believe that it was in June or July 1984—that Ministers and specifically my noble friend Lady Thatcher, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and Mr. Richard Luce, made it clear that Her Majesty's Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament an agreement which was not acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. At that stage China suddenly recognised that she had something to lose. It was in those last weeks that a number of concessions were made which helped to make the 1984 agreement as good an agreement as I believe it was.
I wish to say something about a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn; why, after 150 years without local democracy in Hong Kong, is it necessary to introduce it now? The way I see it is that in the past responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong has been shared between the Government of Hong Kong and Whitehall. The Governor has always worn two hats—a Foreign Office hat and a Hong Kong hat. But in the background there has always been Westminster as the ultimate guardian against government abuse of the people of Hong Kong.
In 1997 Peking takes over from Whitehall, but there will not for the foreseeable future, be any replacement for Westminster. That is why we need to create a legislature which has the power at least to reveal and protest if China misbehaves towards Hong Kong after 1997. That is what Mr. Patten is seeking to achieve.
Two questions of good faith have been raised. First, whether Mr. Patten's proposals do in fact conflict in letter or spirit with the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, has raised
250
specific points on that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, has given his view that they do conflict. I do not know the answer, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government must give more explanation on that point. I hope that we shall hear more about it shortly from my noble friend Lady Chalker.
Secondly, there has been a question as to whether there has been a breach of agreement contained in the now published 1990 exchange of letters between the two Foreign Secretaries. I have read those papers very carefully and I personally cannot see it. But I recognise that a number of Chinese take a different view. It may well be that there is a real problem of cultural differences in legal interpretation. For example, I am told that senior British judges have found that the Chinese may believe that an agreement to disagree is in effect a legal agreement that there shall be no agreement. That sounds a little complicated, but there can be a real problem in two quite different cultures looking at the same legal situation.
I have not time to comment in detail on Mr. Patten's constitutional proposals. However I have very real reservations about his proposals relating to functional constituencies. Functional constituencies were designed to be a form of corporate government. I believe that they would lose this purpose if they themselves were democratised. For example, I do not believe that the banking interest would feel that it was represented (which is the object of having a functional constituency) if every employee of the bank had a vote and one ended up with perhaps a clerk who is a political activist being elected to LEGCO as the functional representative. I have considerable doubts about the particular suggestions which Mr. Patten has put forward on this.
The deep suspicions which China has of Hong Kong to which the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, referred, seem to have become focused against Mr. Patten personally. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to the possible need for an honest broker. That may be a good idea. In that case I wonder whether Sir Edward Heath might not have a role to play. He is no friend of Hong Kong; but he is a friend of both Mr. Patten and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, both of whom started their distinguished political careers under his patronage. But more important, Sir Edward is a trusted and respected friend of the most senior of China's leaders. In that they demonstrate an attractive aspect of the Chinese political character: loyalty to old friends. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, taught me when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge, that that is a luxury which politicians in the western tradition are ill-advised to practise.
I believe that Britain has much to be proud of: a century and a half of altruistic and honest government under some outstanding administrators, two of whom are with us today. British investors have made a major commercial contribution to Hong Kong and have created a business environment which has attracted literally millions of Chinese to cross the border to practise their remarkable entrepreneurial talents. That is now making a crucial contribution to the economic development of Southern China and beyond. What

251
has been created is far too important to China, Britain and, most of all, to the people of Hong Kong, to be put at risk by ill-judged posturing. The world has quite enough insoluble problems without allowing the soluble ones to fester.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Geddes has indeed found a timely moment to initiate this debate. But I must begin by apologising to him (as indeed I gave him notice) that I would be unable to he here for his speech. However, it was more than a pleasure to have listened to the wonderful maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn.
Both as a Home Office Minister and subsequently as the Minister most closely handling Hong Kong and China in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office between 1987 and 1989, I had the privilege of working closely with the noble Lord in London and in Hong Kong. He is certainly not only a true professional but also one who has studied Hong Kong and China in considerable depth over many years. His wisdom and calm assessment of the pitfalls of putting one foot (let alone both feet) wrong over handling Hong Kong issues is widely respected, and particularly so by me.
Since leaving the Government in 1989, I have done my best to keep abreast of Hong Kong matters. I have visited the territory regularly, as have many of your Lordships. I have endeavoured to keep up to date with Hong Kong's sometimes conflicting opinions. I have met a number of influential representatives of the People's Republic of China and continue to do so. To that extent I have tried to continue in a more limited and personal way the pattern of dialogue which characterised the Government's approach throughout the time that I was at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The going then was often rough; the slope steep. Sometimes one slid two paces back for every one taken forward, as my noble friend Lord Nelson. of Stafford discovered in much earlier days on matters of trade with China.
Through calm persistence in formal meetings and a mostly friendly and constructive private dialogue, the activities of the Joint Liaison Group, the Basic Law Drafting Committee and, indeed, Britain's more general relationship with China were taken forward and built upon, in keeping with the Joint Declaration of 1984. However, in 1988 it seemed to me that a different perspective arose in relation to people's perceptions of the Joint Declaration—a pricking of certain consciences, perhaps. There were those who asked: had the United Kingdom achieved in the Joint Declaration the best possible outcome for Hong Kong? Were the interests of its people properly safeguarded? Could we not achieve an outcome with which we could all feel more comfortable by reopening the dialogue? Was Britain being too submissive, afraid to stand up to China?
These were understandable concerns. Nagging doubts often linger over the adequacy of deals struck. But we had struck a deal. The People's Republic of China had struck a deal, and it had been hailed at the time as a triumph, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher
252
indicated. However hard a bargain the People's Republic of China strikes, it does have a reputation for abiding by the letter to internationally agreed treaties.
The pressure to think again grew with vigour after Tiananmen Square. That unforgivable and odious operation was condemned the world over. But even if they stuck publicly to their party line, I suspect that there were (and, indeed, are) many influential representatives of China who, even if they had predicted such a tragic turn of events, were sickened by it, contemptuous of it and continue to be so. Some did not even hide their feelings in private.
Tiananmen Square occurred at the time when the pressure was mounting from some in Hong Kong to accelerate the pace of democratic reforms. As we have heard, democracy (certainly in terms of directly elected seats) had been very limited before about 1986. Yet what had earlier been resisted by China in this regard had been carefully negotiated with success. The pressure to accelerate came not only from Hong Kong, but also from a body of opinion in this country. Increased democracy in Hong Kong seemed to some to be the best possible insurance against what some perceived to be the unfavourable Joint Declaration of 1984. And so, the bandwagon of opinion began to roll.
Her Majesty's Government, through all the avenues open to them, had continued to explore with China, firmly but diplomatically, ways of meeting the concerns in Hong Kong which had been genuinely and understandably thrown into sharp relief by Tiananmen Square. Continuity—a word which has been used on many occasions in this debate—was the watchword. Progress was made within the Joint Liaison Group and the Basic Law Drafting Committee. Confidence in Hong Kong remained reasonably buoyant. The "immigration package" was agreed—and progress was positive on a number of fronts. It seemed that the dictum of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, when he was Foreign Secretary, that the interests of Hong Kong were best served when London and Beijing were in constructive dialogue was still valid.
I served in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with my noble friend Lady Chalker and with the new Governor. I have much admiration for both of them. For the Governor, his incisive intellect, his political instinct and ability were obviously characteristics influential in his appointment. He certainly deserves the support of all those who have a keen interest in and concern for Hong Kong. The support for him, however, for which my noble friend Lady Thatcher called, should not mean that those who have a particular knowledge should refrain from encouraging Her Majesty's Government to see another point of view or to tread with particular caution. Constructive criticism need not imply disloyalty either to Her Majesty's Government or to the Governor. We are all inevitably embroiled in a public debate about Hong Kong—even if currently, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, has said, it is probably far too public.
The stakes are exceedingly high. There is no monopoly of wisdom on how to tackle the sensitive

253
issues involved. Those who have had the often difficult task of negotiating on Hong Kong deserve a lot of credit for their experience and success. My experience is certainly limited compared to that of many, but I would not be true to myself if I did not say to my noble friend Lady Chalker that I am deeply and increasingly disturbed by the current turn of events.
Of course, while the headlines here dwell on perceived Chinese intransigence over the Governor's democracy package, and those in the Chinese press dwell on Britain's perceived change of policy and style, there are strong undercurrents, on trade with China and other matters, which represent business as usual. Thank goodness for those at least.
The democracy proposals may be a genuine attempt to bolster Hong Kong opinion against worries about 1997—and to some extent to satisfy public opinion here. They do not breach the letter of the Joint Declaration. The proposals are clever and have raised hopes for some in Hong Kong. But I am forced to ask, as others have done: Are they wholly wise in combination of content, manner of announcement, and with no apparent paving of the way? In the eyes of the People's Republic of China, they have breached the spirit of the Joint Declaration. I would not go so far as saying "breached", but I would say "dented". To some extent, the People's Republic of China has been outwitted. It has reacted accordingly and, I suspect, very predictably. Confidence among many in Hong Kong is endangered. The stock market has become very volatile. The economic engine of Hong Kong's success has started to splutter.
It seemed to me that any subtle extension of earlier proposals on democracy to meet timetables or aspirations required some sort of fallback position in case they were to land on stony ground. I am bound to say that as the war of words develops, exaggerated though it may well be, I am increasingly concerned about where our fallback lies—and, indeed, where that of China lies. To those who say—and this has been said in various quarters recently—that LEGCO could always turn the package down, I am forced to ask what good that would do the Governor's position, particularly after such a well-deserved and powerfully hailed beginning, or indeed the position of Her Majesty's Government in their relationship with China.
I most sincerely believe that Her Majesty's Government must be clear about what constituency of opinion and what interests they are striving to satisfy. I unashamedly do not subscribe to the view that being obdurate with China just for the sake of being seen to do so or to make us feel better—not "kowtowing to China" as many would put it—is likely to provide either harmony between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China or the ultimate assurance that Hong Kong so badly needs. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that patience; tough, perhaps depressing, even irritating, negotiations in public and in private; and the exercise
254
of real diplomatic skills based on a deep understanding of the other side are likely to make the best breakthrough. A futile war of words, of threats, and of public bluff-calling will not, more particularly as time runs out.
But we are where we are, if not where I would wish us to be. So what do we do immediately? I, too, suggest that all concerned on both sides cease the rhetoric, listen to the voices of experience and calm reason, and do all possible to protect both a treaty which was so hard won, and all that should stem from it. Somehow all concerned must rediscover and revive the spirit of constructive, if difficult, debate which history will show worked pretty well for eight years. It is encouraging today to know that this week's Joint Liaison Group talks are at least still continuing.
If we do not adopt some such course, there is a real danger that much that so many have strived so hard to establish may be put at risk—or even dismantled—in 1997. I really think that that may be the case and that China's threats, however undesirable, are not hollow, particularly in relation to current proposals. To believe otherwise is a truly great gamble.
Above all, I hope that the Government will appreciate the risks and the difficulties of trying to satisfy fully a well-intentioned but sometimes over emotional constituency of opinion in this country, let alone in Hong Kong, about a very complex international issue, at the expense of a realistic approach to what is achievable by 1997, in an atmosphere which is as fragile as this one is most certainly fast becoming.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the House will be delighted to hear that I am not going to make a long speech. I went to China with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the much respected and long gone Lord Rhodes, who went there with three parliamentary missions. He was a very old man—he was over 80, which is not perhaps very old in this House—and a very clever man. He got on extraordinarily well with the Chinese leaders whom he met. I remember him meeting one of the top men, whose name I cannot remember. They were both limping. Lord Rhodes said, "What's wrong with your leg?" The Chinese replied, "War wounds". "Same with me", said Lord Rhodes. He established a rapport immediately. While I totally support the extension of democracy in Hong Kong, what has come out of the debate is that we have to live with the realities. The realities were stated with devastating clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who put forward points which the Minister must answer.
We had another very interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who said that his ancestor negotiated the ceding of Hong Kong. He did negotiate it, I understand, but we used certain influences towards China which they did not care for. The ceding was not entirely voluntary. That is remembered over a very long period.
It is also true, as has been said many times, that face is often very much more important than money. Several noble Lords said that we should not rely on

255
the obvious financial advantage to try to pressurise the Chinese Government into steps that they do not wish to take. After all, they look at us and say, "There are the British. They have ruled Hong Kong for 150 years without any democracy. They want to hand it over to us with a democratic structure". Of course we do, but I can see their point of view quite clearly.
The Minister will have to admit that while the intentions may have been good there must have been a lack of preparation in that the row which has been stirred up and the reaction of China was not expected; at least I hope it was not expected. It has gone to an extent which endangers the good work that was put in when securing the agreement. If the Governor, Chris Patten, had gone to Peking and used his charm in the same way as he used his charm and political ability to get the backing of the good people of Hong Kong, we might have had a very different outcome.
The Minister has a lot of questions to answer. It is interesting that the score is about even—but all the support has come from her own Back-Benches.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, so warmly on his maiden speech, if he will accept congratulations from one whose own maiden speech in this House lies in the very recent past. His contribution will long be remembered both for its well informed and thoughtful content and for his wisdom in choosing an occasion on which he can speak with such great authority and without a note. This debate would have been much the poorer without his contribution.
I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for initiating the debate. I believe that it is a suitable time for the House to make known its views in the light of the very eventful period through which Hong Kong has passed since the last debate in the House in June.
The debate has been characterised, as so many debates in your Lordships' House, by contributions from noble Lords with a background of knowledge and experience on the subject. We have benefited from the wealth of that experience. Like my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I am very conscious that I do not share that knowledge or experience. I speak from hearsay and from reading, and so I am mindful that I can do little more than comment, with such humility as I can muster, on how this debate has appeared to me.
There appears to be total agreement in the Chamber that the role of the United Kingdom is as a trustee for the people of Hong Kong of their future. It may be said that that relationship was not sought by our generation and that it was conferred on us by history. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, reminded us that it is down to Captain Elliot. But no one would deny that that now exists. The questions for debate are how we can discharge that obligation, not to ourselves, nor to our own commercial interests, but to the people of Hong Kong. I would respectfully echo what was so eloquently said on that matter by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson.
256
The differences which have appeared seem to me to lie between two quite understandable points of view. On the one hand there are those who say that the existing commercial prosperity of Hong Kong and the confidence of the commercial community in its future are dependent on the goodwill of the Peking Government. If that Government decline to recognise contracts placed by the present administration, or otherwise prove unco-operative in relation to commercial activities, that of course would be damaging to those who carry on commerce in Hong Kong or with Hong Kong. They urge the wisdom of maintaining good relations with the Chinese Government and of restraint in taking any steps which might endanger those good relations. That is one point of view.
The other point of view is expressed by those who believe that for the people of Hong Kong the future is not to be measured simply in terms of commercial prosperity—a community does not live by bread alone —and if the people are denied a voice in their own future they lose something which this country would not be prepared to sacrifice on its own behalf and ought not to be prepared to sacrifice on behalf of others. Indeed those who have expressed that view have gone further. They have asked not only what it should profit a community if it gains the commercial world and forfeits its soul; they point out that without a degree of control over their own destiny the people of Hong Kong are in danger of losing their commercial advantages as well. Certainly there is no commercial profit for anyone in a brain-drain.
Those are the two points of view that have been expressed. Both considerations are important. If there is a prospect of reconciling both worlds, then it is sensible to explore it. If the problems arise from a misunderstanding, then that misunderstanding should if possible be resolved.
Part of the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, and as was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, in her thoughtful and restrained contribution, may arise from a Chinese suspicion that the acceleration of democracy stems, not from a conviction, but from an attempt to embarrass China and perhaps to prolong Britain's influence. If the Beijing Government can be persuaded that the British proposals seek merely to reflect the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and that the Government have no other motivation, which I genuinely believe to be the case, then some of the differences may disappear. If the Chinese Government are prepared to enter into a dialogue no damage need be done to the colony's commercial future. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, pointed out, what has particularly alarmed the people of Hong Kong is the reaction of the Chinese Government to the Governor's proposals.
I wholly endorse what was said so movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. If we are negotiating on behalf of the people of Hong Kong and if, as I believe, our sole objective in this exercise is their well-being, then surely the clearest criterion of that well-being is their wishes. Those wishes were expressed in the clearest terms in September 1991 when they

257
demonstrated support for the programme of Mr. Martin Lee and the United Democratic Party. If there is a price to be paid, and no doubt there is, I believe that they did not overlook it at the time. Of course, the extent of the Beijing Government's power lawfully to renounce contracts and other obligations is not necessarily a measure of their capacity to interfere in their implementation. We recognise that. Nor is their capacity to interfere in their implementation necessarily the measure of the damage which their threats may achieve in relation to commercial confidence.
However, we should place on record—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for having referred to the point—the fact that Article 160 of the Basic Law is unambiguous. It is not something which the Chinese Government could lawfully do. Perhaps one should add for good measure that Article 120 repeats that provision in relation to leases. In any event, those provisions specify only what would be the position under international law and practice. If the Beijing Government are minded to find ways of eroding their obligations—for example, by a perverse interpretation of what is in conflict with the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress—then no doubt physical power is on their side. But, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, it is surely in the interests of all parties to have a discussion on Hong Kong's commercial future. The Chinese Government stand to gain as much as they stand to lose under the body of contracts which will straddle 1997.
If, so far as possible, we are to assure the people of Hong Kong that freedom which they seek and which we would claim for ourselves, there are two elements which have emerged in the debate which we need to have in mind. The first is the right to participate in the decision-making process. That can only mean moving as quickly as is sensible towards representative government. It means a legislature which, whatever the constituencies and the proportions, is chosen by a widely enfranchised electorate. It means that that legislature has an effective role in the constitutional process.
It may be said—indeed it was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross—that in the past government in Hong Kong has been by benevolent despotism and that there was little evidence of objection from the people of Hong Kong. The answer to that was provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who pointed out that historically few communities have developed a vision of democracy in the abstract. It has usually arisen when people have had severely pragmatic reasons either to complain about the decisions of those who rule them or to fear the decisions of those who are about to rule them. That of course does not invalidate the arguments of those who seek a democratic future for Hong Kong. On the contrary, it reinforces them.
Many of those who have argued, and many of those who have voted, for representative democracy in Hong Kong are troubled, not by the textbook arguments of John Stuart Mill but, as the noble Lords,
258
Lord Derwent and Lord Marlesford, pointed out, by the consequences for their own daily lives of decisions taken by Beijing or its agents if they have no redress. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, regretted the shortsightedness of a policy which says, in effect, "Let us rule our colonies from within closed doors, provided that they do not make too much fuss", because one day they may have occasion to make a fuss and then we may find ourselves fettered by the weight of the past.
An effective role for the legislature would not be inconsistent, even at this stage, with bringing into the Executive some of those who may claim to speak for the people of Hong Kong. Perhaps the Governor will have those considerations in mind, especially in relation to the United Democratic Party.
I ventured to say that there were two elements in the concept of freedom. Secondly, freedom means the freedom of individuals to express a political opinion without being imprisoned, tortured or subjected to other forms of persecution. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, suggested that that may be of greater importance than representative government to the people of Hong Kong. Unhappily, there is little indication from the Chinese Government that they have undergone a change of heart on the subject of human rights. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, the reports from Amnesty International on the subject of human rights are most disturbing. That applies within the People's Republic itself and in areas such as Tibet. They offer little to inspire confidence for the people of Hong Kong. Those anxieties are reinforced by the well-informed comments of Mr. Derek Davies, the former editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review in the correspondence columns of The Times today.
Clearly anything which can be done at this stage to institutionalise human rights and to make it less likely that the Chinese Government will seek to override them is very much to be welcomed, not just for its own sake but it may help to resolve the understandable anxieties of the people of Hong Kong. The Reverend Louis Ho writing in Basic Law, Basic Questions in 1988 said that the draft provisions at that time about basic rights were far from a bill of rights:
"Yet they were impressive enough to assure people that the future of Hong Kong was bright".
That, of course, was before Tiananmen Square.
I share the regret of noble Lords that we have not had the assistance of the impressions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, this afternoon, although I fully understand and indeed applaud the reasons for his absence. We are grateful to have the impressions of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I noticed that the Minister said earlier that she would have something to say about human rights at a later stage in the debate. We look forward to hearing her answers to the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I hope that she may be able to deal with the anxieties expressed by my noble friend about the position of the Vietnamese boat people. We are all hopeful that the new Administration in the United States, whatever view they take about China, will take

259
account of the world's anxieties when considering their future policies and programmes in relation to Vietnam.
I hope that in his attempt to strengthen democratic institutions in Hong Kong, the Governor will have the support of all parties in this country. I share the hope of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that nothing said in this debate will offer any encouragement to the Peking Government to believe otherwise. Of course, the Opposition reserve the right to observe how negotiations are conducted, both by the Government and by the Governor, and how effectively they pursue the objectives on which we are all agreed. That is the right; indeed it is the function of our oppositions. We are entitled to agree with the profound observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, that if there had been a greater sense of urgency in the past in responding to calls for democracy in Hong Kong the task might now have been facilitated.
We are bound to reflect, as was said by a number of your Lordships, that it might well have been better if Mr. Patten had begun the dialogue with consultation rather than a precipitate public announcement in the manner which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, described as the "hustings mode of politics". It must have appeared to the Chinese people that what he was attempting to do was to pre-empt discussion. That was what was meant by my noble friend Lady Blackstone when she spoke of the Chinese people's perception of "pulling a fast one". I am bound to say, with respect and I hope without offence, that I thought that both the noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Marlesford, were less than fair to my noble friend in their construction of what she said. What she said was clearly a well-deserved and appropriate comment to make.
Whatever we may say as to the manner of conducting the debate, I hope that the message which goes out from this debate tonight is twofold. I hope that to the people of Hong Kong the message is: "You are not on your own. The Government and the Opposition alike in Britain accept our responsibility to do all we can to safeguard your future in accordance with your expressed wishes". To the Government of China I hope that the message is: "We respect your entitlement to the integrity of your nationhood. We try to understand your concerns and we believe that the good relations between our two governments are in the interests of your country and ours and those of the people of Hong Kong. But we will not be intimidated by commercial or political threats into renouncing our responsibility to safeguard the legitimate interests of the people of Hong Kong". The more clearly that message is articulated and the less room there is left for misunderstanding, the better, I believe, for the promise of friendly relations with China and for the future of Hong Kong.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as one might have expected, this has been a debate of real concern, high quality and great knowledge. In many cases it is long knowledge of Hong Kong and China. I particularly add my congratulations to the noble
260
Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, on a maiden speech of rare quality, of great wisdom and extremely well paced, with all that he knows about the great difficulties of dealing with an emerging and vibrant part of the world which has many tensions. We understand very well what he was saying.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to the Opposition Front Bench on this foreign affairs subject. I particularly again thank my noble friend Lord Geddes, as I did in my opening remarks, and also my noble friend Lady Thatcher, for their clear and forthright speeches. I know that my noble friend Lady Thatcher experienced many difficult exchanges with China in the early 1980s and we value her realism in understanding how we take these difficult matters forward.
The aspirations of the people of Hong Kong, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, told us so clearly, are important and much respected. We thank her for her outstanding and thoughtful contribution tonight. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on his return from China and I shall return to the subject of human rights a little later. We shall, of course, await the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on this important visit with great interest in the new year.
Tonight we have had typically tough talk from many in this House, as well as having heard some exceedingly tough talk from China and from Hong Kong in recent days. That is not surprising. I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that Her Majesty's Government care about co-operation with China and Hong Kong to get the matter right. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, that there is no hidden agenda. As my noble friend Lord Bessborough said, we need great diplomatic skill and tact in working our way forward and no one needs it more than the Governor in responding to the needs of Hong Kong.
I assure my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that no one is being obdurate to China, neither the British Government nor the Hong Kong Governor. But we have some real responsibilities and in answering your Lordships' questions tonight I wish to try to cover those responsibilities in specific answers.
As my noble friend Lady Thatcher said, the Governor's Address, Our Next Five Years: The Agenda for Hong Kong, was a carefully crafted and thoughtfully-planned address at the opening of the 1992–93 session of the Legislative Council. I respectfully suggest that paragraphs 101 to 147, "The Constitutional Package" are worth reading over and over again. They are, above all, proposals which needed to be put to the people of Hong Kong and to be discussed also with the Government of China. In the publication, Our Next Five Years, the Governor has reviewed all Hong Kong's needs in a most detailed and impressive way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and learned Lord, Lord Archer, the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, said that the Governor was wrong not to consult the Chinese over the constitutional package. As my noble friend

261
Lady Thatcher said, the Foreign Secretary gave detailed advance briefing to the Chinese Foreign Minister in New York on 25th September. The Governor sent a personal message to Mr. Lu Ping, going over the same ground. We made it clear that we wanted to discuss the proposals for the 1995 LEGCO elections fully with the Chinese and that they were proposals and not firm decisions. It is in the interests of Hong Kong that there should be calm and rational dialogue between us. We very much hope that the Chinese will eventually agree to that.
It would not, I am sad to say, have been politically possible for the Governor to have spent months and months discussing his thinking in private with the Chinese because then we would have seen a resulting speculation and uncertainty in Hong Kong which, as all my noble friends and particularly Lord Derwent and others have said, would have undermined Hong Kong in a dangerous way. It would have damaged stability and prosperity. I need only remind your Lordships of the difficulties over the airport negotiations to underline that those discussions could have carried on for a very long time.
It has also been said by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever and others in this debate that the Governor's policy speech was a fundamental change in our approach. There is no change in our approach to relations with China over Hong Kong; we still want good co-operation in the interests of a smooth transition. The Joint Declaration remains the foundation of our policy. On an issue of this great importance in Hong Kong, we believed that having tried to explain the proposals in detail to the Chinese side beforehand, to avoid surprises, there would be debate. No one was in any doubt about that. But we emphasised throughout that on electoral arrangements the Governor would announce proposals. We genuinely want to discuss those proposals, so now is the time for calm discussion.
A number of your Lordships asked me about the use of the Joint Liaison Group. Perhaps I may say that the British Government are fully ready to discuss the electoral proposals with the Chinese in any forum they wish. We would be happy to hold such talks in the Joint Liaison Group. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said some moments ago, the 25th meeting of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group is currently taking place in Hong Kong. It is covering a number of issues, sadly not this one, but I shall leave it to our senior representative to summarise the outcome after the meeting finishes tomorrow. I would simply say to the House in this respect about the use of the Joint Liaison Group that we have no hesitation in wishing to discuss with them any matters of the nature that your Lordships have raised in this House tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who as ever made one of the most interesting speeches on the subject of Hong Kong, was concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, about the point of introducing new electoral arrangements in 1995 if the Chinese seemed determined to overthrow them in 1997. This goes back to the responsibility that the Governor has to make proposals for electoral
262
arrangements that he considers to be in the best interests of Hong Kong. That is why we very much hope that the Chinese side will not take precipitate decisions as to what they may or may not do several years from now. If the electoral arrangements can be seen to work and produce a responsible Legislative Council in 1995—I am sure they can—there is no good reason for the Chinese side to overturn the situation in 1997. They would need to take full account of the effect on Hong Kong itself and also the international reaction if they were to do so.
A number of your Lordships are concerned about the composition of the Election Committee. The main focus of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary's exchanges with the Foreign Minister, Qian Qichen, in early 1990, which has been the subject of correspondence now published, was the question of the number of directly-elected seats in LEGCO. On that we did not reach full agreement. We accepted 18 then as the number of directly-elected seats for 1991, but we reserved our right to press for more than 20 seats in 1995. Our view remains that an increase in that figure would be the simplest way of expanding democracy in Hong Kong. That has been a hope expressed again and again in Hong Kong, by Members in your Lordships' House and in other places. We still hope that China will reconsider its position on this.
Another part of the exchanges between my right honourable friend Douglas Hurd and the Chinese was the possible composition of the Election Committee. We agreed in principle to some ideas discussed by the two sides, but on certain important conditions. In the event, the conditions were not met. As recently as last summer Chinese officials discussed with groups from Hong Kong possible compositions for the Election Committee quite unlike those discussed in 1990. It is therefore clear that the Chinese side as well regarded the 1990 discussions as being inconclusive.
The Basic Law does not, of course, spell out details of the arrangements for the 1995 Legislative Council election. Those are a British responsibility. It is the Governor's responsibility to make those proposals. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharp—and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who is with us—that I think in a sense he has misunderstood the Governor's proposals. The Governor is not suggesting any increase in the number of directly-elected seats.
I know that there was, of course, the OMELCO's consensus in 1989, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, referred, and it was that which sought 30 directly-elected seats in 1995. The exchange of correspondence to which I have just referred shows that we fought hard for an agreed increase in directly-elected seats. We concluded that we should not proceed unilaterally. That remains our position. There has been no change in our policy on that. We note that in the more recent debates in the Legislative Council there is no longer a consensus on this specific point, and that is why we have not followed that through.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and a number of your Lordships, also referred to the reason for the

263
release of the exchange of messages between the Foreign Secretary and the Chinese Foreign Minister. It was the Chinese Government who proposed that we should release these documents. They had referred to them in public. We decided to set the record straight, and I hope that noble Lords have read the documents because they make clear that there is no secret deal whatsoever over the Election Committee.
I have also been asked whether there was an understanding. The record of what I said a few moments ago shows clearly that we were prepared to agree in principle to the composition of the Election Committee, but as the conditions of that offer have not been realised then the composition of the 1995 Election Committee is a matter still to be decided in the eyes of the Chinese because they certainly did not decide it was settled.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and a number of your Lordships, talked about a breach of an earlier Sino-British agreement on convergence; that is, that both sides should have agreed before the proposals were announced. I fully understand why that has been said and posed as a question. We fully accept, too, the need for as much continuity as possible, but we are in that process of discussion now on those proposals. I hope that no one says that we should have accepted that the Chinese side had a veto over any proposals coming forward for 1995 elections. We face practical deadlines. We must get on with some proposals in debate now. We have made it clear that we welcome proposals from the Chinese as well as from other bodies in Hong Kong itself, for there may well be alternative proposals which will serve the needs of the people of Hong Kong better.
I have had a good look at the composition of the Governor's proposals. They do not affect the agreed numbers in any way. But as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, they have implications for the composition of the functional constituencies, and in turn this obviously will affect the kind of people who are to be elected. That is a matter that should rightly be discussed and debated, and that debate can now begin.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, asked that we should not allow—I think that was his word—the fact that there were proposals for nine new functional constituencies to amount to direct elections by another name. I must agree with him that the Governor's proposals are a broadening of participation, but I really would not think that this was so radical that it could not be encompassed for Hong Kong in the future for one country, two systems. The functional constituency representatives would still be elected by economic category to represent people at their workplace, and that is the essence of the functional constituency system, which has of course already been largely accepted.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky questioned whether the Governor's ideas were acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. I can only say to him that on current reading of what is going on in Hong Kong the people seem to be in favour of those proposals by a majority of about two to one. We must, of course, be sure in what is going on that those proposals are
264
clearly and rightly debated. I hope that when they are better understood, that majority may even improve. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that the Governor must be supported. If he is right, fair enough, but if he is wrong the Governor must have the chance to push these proposals through the debating system. That is exactly what we wish to achieve with the Chinese Government.
Many other issues have been raised in this debate, and particularly the whole question of a peaceful change, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, raised. He referred to security and law and order in the colony, and to that being an important responsibility for the Government. May I say to him that the size of the garrison in Hong Kong is, and will be, kept under regular review. I shall particularly keep in mind the advice of the noble and gallant Lord, based on his great experience, when we come to the next review. We do understand the implication of his remarks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, both asked about human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also referred to that issue on the basis of his experience, particularly in the last week. The Hong Kong Government, with us, have taken measures to try to strengthen human rights in Hong Kong. Of course, we have the two international covenants on social and political rights, implemented in Hong Kong through the Bill of Rights which was introduced last year. The importance of saying that is that Article 39 of the Basic Law also provides that those two covenants continue to apply in Hong Kong after 1997.
That is a very good reason why we should look to the Government of China for the improvement of human rights within China. We do not take perhaps as hard a line on that as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, would sometimes like us to. We all regret what happened at Tiananmen Square, and nobody has any time for behaviour of that nature. However, when the troika of foreign ministers raised the question of human rights with the Chinese Foreign Minister at their meeting in New York on 21st September, on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, they were listened to politely. Again, our Prime Minister put forward our views with the Chinese Vice-Premier, Zhu Rongji during the latter's visit in November of this year, and the Chinese should be in no doubt about the depth of our concern. That also means that those conventions are respected after 1997.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the critical key commercial business of Hong Kong and the effect on Hong Kong. In his opening remarks my noble friend Lord Geddes was very clear about the tremendous competition that exists for the whole world to see in Shanghai and other cities within China. May I say we believe that the example of Hong Kong is going to catch on in many other places which may not be currently in the economic zone of China. There is great potential, and that is why I particularly take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Holme. He commented about having better commercial promotion within the whole China region. Certainly it is

265
a region of outstanding opportunities for British business, but above all it is a region of outstanding opportunities for Hong Kong business. That is why we must work away at this relationship and ensure that we can succeed everywhere that British business wants to work.
How right my noble friend Lord Derwent was in his very realistic approach to the whole situation in Hong Kong. He made some very wise remarks, although I will not go over them all. My noble friend Lord Marlesford showed a very clear understanding of the role the Governor must play in order to keep the economic future of Hong Kong going strongly. We are well aware of the anxieties about the financial future of Hong Kong and we are also well aware of the nervousness which was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, concerning consultation with the Chinese on major franchises which extend beyond 1997 in Hong Kong.
We consult the Chinese in respect of a number of important franchises, as we have agreed, such as that of the China light and power scheme of control. I must say that when we have been talking about such matters the consultations have proceeded smoothly and we sincerely hope that they will continue to do so, because we believe it is critically important for Britain and China to do business together. Where British business is competitive, I see no reason why Britain should not continue to win contracts in China, and Hong Kong firms, too.
When Vice-Premier Zhu Rongji was here I had particular discussions about prospects in China with the deputy Trade Minister. I look forward to seeing more contracts won by British companies in China: indeed, many of them are being backed by Hong Kong money, and that is a very important aspect of Hong Kong's future—that it should be a full partner in the projects which are going on all over China.
Her Majesty's Government take very seriously their responsibility for administering Hong Kong up to 30th June 1997. It is one of the highest foreign policy priorities. Some have suggested that we are pressing ahead recklessly to build up democracy without taking account of the interests of the Hong Kong people. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said, we believe that the Governor's proposals for broadening democracy would help to safeguard Hong Kong's way of life. I hope that those who criticise the Governor's proposals will explain how they would go about meeting the wishes of the Hong Kong people for a greater say in the running of their own affairs. It is not realistic to imagine that Hong Kong can continue to develop economically while standing still politically. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, made that very clear in her speech to your Lordships tonight.
On 7th October the Governor said in his policy speech to the Legislative Council:
"The success of the economy is central to all our hopes. We must do nothing to jeopardise it".
I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken in our debate today agree with that. Our policy, and the policy of the Governor, is directed to securing the
266
prosperity and the stability of Hong Kong. Part of the answer is protecting Hong Kong's way of life and that means building up representative government within the terms of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Another part is achieving as much continuity as possible and a smooth transition in 1997. That means co-operating with China. I take very much to heart what the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose and Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, said tonight. However, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher said, there is no contradiction between those two propositions. We wish to move ahead in co-operation with China in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong; and the Governor and Her Majesty's Government are committed to doing that to the full.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I may ask her just one question. If the Chinese Government continue to reject the proposals, is it the intention of the Governor of Hong Kong to implement them nevertheless?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is a question that at this stage, either in this debate or in the whole process, is simply not answerable. I believe that other suggestions will come forward, some perhaps based on the Governor's proposals. Some may come forward anew, but I do not think it does any good to speculate at a very early stage in the process, particularly when matters are quite as sensitive as they are. I think the whole House would welcome the opportunity for quiet and calm reflection; and perhaps some of that reflection might not be on the front pages of the newspapers, because in that way I am sure we will gain greater success. Above all, the people of Hong Kong must be fully consulted, and that is exactly what the Governor intends to do.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it would be invidious and indeed wearisome, particularly at this hour, to single out any particular speech in a debate of such amazingly in-depth talent. Having said that, that is exactly what I am going to do, but very briefly. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, if I heard him aright, made the extremely interesting comment that in his opinion—and that is the opinion of a barrister of enormous eminence—not only the spirit but the substance of the Governor's proposals were contrary to the Basic Law. If that is what he said then I would urge my noble friend Lady Chalker to take a very hard look to make sure that that situation does not arise.
The noble and learned Lord also made a most interesting comment about the Governor adopting a hustings mode. This is not the occasion to go into that issue in depth. However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to impress on her colleagues, particularly in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, how difficult it is to translate an occidental mind and a Westminster mode into an oriental situation.

267
The second speaker I should like to mention is the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who, in a thoughtfully prepared and thought-provoking speech, yet again did an enormous service to this House and indeed to Hong Kong. We thank her for it.
Thirdly, I should like to mention the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. My noble friend on the Front Bench has already mentioned his extremely interesting and thought-provoking speech. I urge my noble friend to pay particular attention to what he had to say.
Fourthly, my noble friend herself again displayed enormous courtesy and clarity from the Front Bench. Although she and I do not agree totally on this subject I thank her most sincerely for the way she handled the debate, as she does whenever she speaks from the Front Bench.
Finally, I should like to mention my noble friend —if I may now call him that—Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. All the words that I had written down with which to congratulate him on his maiden speech have been used. I certainly shall not repeat them. Perhaps the best thing that I can do is to advise your Lordships that I have it on good authority that his hatter is waiting in the Peers Lobby and is most grateful because he is quite certain that the noble Lord will have to order hats several sizes larger and wishes to express his appreciation. I jest. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, made a truly outstanding maiden speech. We are most grateful to him for that and hope very much to hear him again. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sudan
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards developments in Sudan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a number of disturbing developments in Sudan. I should like to thank all noble Lords who are participating this evening, especially for retaining their patience and a space in their diaries during successive changes of date.
First, I declare my own interest and involvement in Sudan. A few years ago I spent the summer as a nurse in remote area desert work in North Kordofan in the small town of Hamrat El Wiz developing an immunisation and health education programme for the Moslem communities living there. In August this year I had the opportunity to visit southern Sudan in response to an invitation to Christian Solidarity International from the New Sudan Council of Churches. We visited the areas of Waat and Nimule. We had also hoped to visit Yambio but logistical problems made that impossible.
I have therefore visited both the North and the South, although sadly the situation in the North has deteriorated very seriously since I was there.
My concerns, and the questions which they raise, are based on either first-hand evidence or reports received from people or organisations for whom I
268
have great respect. They involve three inter-related issues: violations of human rights in the North and South; humanitarian needs; and the need for a political solution to the problems.
The right to life is the most fundamental human right of all. Yet thousands of Sudanese have been killed in recent years—by drought, flood, famine and war. Many of those deaths have been inflicted by deliberate killing or by the withholding of life-sustaining supplies. It is also reckoned that about 5 million Sudanese have been displaced from their homes and homelands. Of those approximately 2 million have had to flee to the North, about 2 million to the South and about 1 million abroad.
I can speak with personal experience of the plight of those who have had to flee from their homes to seek safety in the South. Many of those are refugees from the government's brutal policies in the Nuba Mountains; others have had to flee from the war or from the effects of drought or flood, to avoid starvation in places now rendered inaccessible to humanitarian relief.
The situation for refugees in the South is desperate. We visited camps for displaced people at Aswa and Atepe, near Nimule. The authorities estimated approximate populations of 19,000 at Aswa and 23,000 at Atepe with a further 41,000 at Ame. Aswa camp had been established only within the previous two weeks before we went for refugees from war in the Torit region and was administered by the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association. Food was being provided by various organisations, including the UN World Food Programme. However, it had been limited to a supply of only 2.7 kilogrammes of unground cereal for each person for seven days. There was no other food, such as beans or oil, except for a limited supply of food supplement for malnourished children, which had run out.
Problems abounded. For example, there was no equipment for grinding the cereal. There were no mosquito nets. The only water available was from the river, which could be as much as 3 kilometres away, and nine people, including children, had been killed by crocodiles in the previous fortnight while collecting water from that river. There were acute shortages of essentials such as shelter and blankets; being the rainy season, temperatures could fall quite low. People were living in quagmires. There were no buckets for transporting water. Cooking utensils were not available. There were no medicines to treat the numerous illnesses, including TB, diarrhoea, dysentery, scabies, kala azar, some leprosy and worm infestations (hookworms and tape worms). As the people said: "We could talk about other shortages such as soap, but because we are only displaced people all we ask for are the essentials for survival".
The camp at Atepe had been established in July and accommodated refugees from Bor, Torit and other areas, including some from Ethiopia. Most of the people there had had time to build their own dwellings and, with characteristic Sudanese initiative, begun to cultivate plants. Food and blankets had been supplied by various NGOs. So their predicament was not as desperate as that in Aswa. But there were still acute

269
shortages of essential foodstuffs, including milk. Medical problems were similar to those in Aswa and people were dying daily from conditions which could have been treated if only medicines had been available.
Acute shortages of medical supplies were also dramatically evident in the hospital at Aswa. Built in 1982, it had been closed in 1986 when all the equipment and fittings were taken North, leaving an empty shell. That hospital now serves a catchment area of 700,000 people, but the only supplies which had been received were a consignment of drugs from the diocese of Torit and surgical dressings from the ICRC. Problems abounded: no running water—the only pump was broken; no electricity—the solar generator's batteries were down, so surgical operations had to stop at sundown; no sanitation; no tools to dig latrines or air-raid shelters; and an acute shortage of medical supplies. Urgent needs included plaster of Paris, needles, syringes, intravenous fluids and administration sets; surgical dressings, basic instruments; antiseptic solutions, indeed all basic supplies. In spite of those shortages the hospital was about to develop a primary health care programme with 180 clinics; 65 were already operational and had begun vaccination programmes with supplies from UNICEF. I and my colleagues were deeply impressed by the care being given by the staff in impossible conditions and we made urgent recommendations for the immediate provision of essential supplies.
I have dwelt at some length on the plight of the displaced people in southern Sudan because I can speak with first-hand knowledge. I can also testify to the aggressive policies of the government in attacking civilian populations with aerial bombardments. Attacks with Antonov planes may occur at any time, but especially on Sunday mornings when the Christian communities gather for worship. I recently received a letter from a medical colleague who described an air-raid in which a large bomb fell very near a large gathering causing some deaths; any nearer and it could have been a catastrophe.
There are other situations in southern Sudan which are also cause for great concern, such as those in Juba and Malakal. In Juba between 250,000 and 300,000 people are being held hostage by government forces. A particularly worrying development was the expulsion of all foreigners, including personnel of aid organisations. The conditions in which these hostages are being kept are reported to be horrific. They are imprisoned in the stadium and churches, subject to maltreatment and starvation. There have been recent reports of arrests, torture and executions. The roads around Juba have been mined to make it impossible for civilians to escape.
The SPLA have been allowing government flights to take food into Juba, despite the fact that government forces earlier this year used six flights by aircraft with United Nations markings to transport soldiers and military equipment into Juba. The lack of independent, international supervision of the distribution of this food is a matter for serious concern. The release of these hostages in Juba must surely be
270
recognised as an urgent priority by the international community if the 250,000 to 300,000 people trapped there are to be saved from death, or a fate worse than death.
It may be of interest to your Lordships to note that the situation in Juba and other violations of human rights in Sudan are apparently highlighted in resolutions before the United States Senate and Congress.
Other areas of concern elsewhere in Sudan include the fate of the people in the Nuba Mountains and the plight of the displaced people moved into the desert around Khartoum. The Nuba people have been subjected to appalling atrocities by government forces: villages have been attacked, villagers massacred and reportedly over 100 men have been crucified. Atrocities have been going on for some time and have been documented by reputable organisations, such as Africa Watch and Amnesty International.
With regard to the treatment of displaced persons who fled to the north, there have been reports of gross violations of human rights there. Reports indicate that between 400,000 and 500,000 refugees have been forced out of Khartoum into the desert, with no adequate supplies of water, food or shelter. The only people allowed to visit them are, it is reported, Moslem agencies. It is claimed that they require refugees to deny their own religious faith and give allegiance to Islam in order to obtain humanitarian relief.
As I begin to draw to a close, I wish to make some general points and to ask my noble friend what extra help the Government can give to alleviate the suffering of the people in Sudan. First, very briefly, there are the general points. I have focused on the suffering caused or exacerbated by the present Government of Sudan. This is because I try to follow the example of Andrei Sakharov and to take the side of the victim. Although the conflict in southern Sudan involves fighting and resistance by the SPLA and although there are reports of some atrocities carried out by their forces, it is the belief of the people with whom I worked that the SPLA is in general fighting a just war for the survival of the people of the south and for the protection of their basic human rights, including religious freedom, and that it has the general support of the population who now live in the south. Certainly the predicament of the hostages trapped in Juba, the people in Malakal, the tragedies experienced by the people in the Nuba Mountains, and the suffering of the displaced people pushed out into the desert around Khartoum, are all issues for which the government in Khartoum must be called to account.
I know that the Government have made valuable and valued contributions in the form of aid through the ODA. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend details of this aid. Therefore I conclude with four specific questions to my noble friend. I gave a little notice of them, but I apologise that I could not give more notice.
First, will Her Majesty's Government be able to exert their influence to prevail upon the Government of Sudan to respect the human rights of all its people,

271
to which it is indeed formally committed by being a signatory of relevant treaties? I ask in particular whether the Government are able to use any political initiatives to prevail upon the Sudanese Government to release the hostages held in Juba and Malakal, and to provide safe havens for them and for other people tragically displaced by war or natural calamities, perhaps particularly the internal refugees concentrated in Nazir and Waat? There is a precedent for the concept of safe havens in what has been talked about and provided for the Kurds. There is an urgent need for similar initiatives for the hundreds of thousands of displaced people in Sudan.
Secondly, may I ask my noble friend whether further thought could be given to the logistics and to the amount of the distribution of life saving humanitarian aid? As I mentioned, some aid is being provided to the south, but it is inadequate to meet the desperate needs of the people; also it often cannot reach those most in need. This raises two subsidiary questions. With regard to logistics, could some assistance be provided to help with the repair of roads and provision of appropriate trucks to enable access to refugees who at present are unable to reach the supplies provided? Could the Government use all their powers of persuasion in conjunction with the EC and the UN to require the government in Khartoum to guarantee access by independent international aid organisations to provide aid to all in need, especially those hostages trapped in Juba and Malakal; and to all internal refugees, especially those in Nazir, Akobo and Waat, and those relocated in the desert around Khartoum?
Thirdly, would my noble friend agree that it is a matter of concern that, as the West pours millions of dollars of aid into Sudan, the Khartoum Government are reported to be using some of that for forced Islamisation, with their policy of in some places making aid conditional on religious allegiance to Islam?
Finally, could this Government use all their powers of persuasion to encourage the Government of Sudan and the SPLA/SPLM to convene a peace conference under their auspices to try to achieve a peaceful resolution of the current civil war? There is widespread belief in Sudan that the British have a special understanding of the complexities of the present situation, as well as some responsibility for establishing the political framework which set the scene for the resulting tragedies. The people of Sudan are looking to Britain for help, not only with humanitarian aid, but also for political initiatives for a just political solution; for protection of basic human rights and perhaps support for a referendum for the people of the south and from the Nuba Mountains on their political future.
The situation of the people suffering from natural and man-made calamities in Sudan has been allowed to fall off the bottom of the agenda of international concern, as the tragedies of former Yugoslavia and Somalia have understandably preoccupied the media. But the suffering of the people in Sudan is horrendous in intensity and in scale. It could soon become another
272
Somalia. The people there feel forgotten and betrayed by the rest of the world. I hope that we in Britain will not fail them in their hour of desperate need.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I warmly compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on initiating this debate. We all know of her strong, caring commitment and we applaud her dedicated personal work among the starving, oppressed, strife-torn peoples of Eastern Europe and Sudan.
As we debate the awful plight of the Sudanese people, we are mindful of the terrible, inhuman treatment of poor people throughout the world—people living on the fringes of today's modern society and its cruelly divided communities. We know only too well of the suffering and the deaths caused by drought, pestilence, disease and other natural disasters.
As communities and as individuals we cannot rationally come to terms with some of these tragic happenings. But when we are made aware of so many avoidable bitter murders, so much mayhem, cruel brutality and suffering, and when we see untimely deaths and destruction brought about by gross misuse of political power, internecine conflict, sheer greed and the evils of misplaced sectarianism, as well as the misuse of nationalism, tribalism and ideologies, we gasp with disbelief and despair. We try earnestly to rise above the depressing challenge of the words,
"Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn".
My interest in the plight of the Sudanese was quickened in 1979. Together with the late Lord Brockway and the Reverend Noel White, Assistant General Secretary of the Church Missionary Society in Ireland, we sought the help and advice of the Overseas Development Administration about an element of aid to Sudan which impinged on the relationship between Khartoum in the Moslem north and Juba in the largely Christian south.
I have not since been actively involved in the ongoing work in Ireland, both North and South, relative to the Sudan situation. However, I am pleased to be able to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other noble Lords that firm organisational developments continue among the Churches in Ireland concerning current Sudanese affairs.
In October the Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Robert Eames, wrote to me expressing the concern of the Irish episcopal bishops about the serious existing situation in Sudan. I know that the Archbishop and the Irish bishops are anxious to do whatever they can to help and are interested in the outcome of the debate.
Last week I discussed Sudan matters with Dr. David Stevens, the General Secretary of the Irish Council of Churches, and with the Reverend Dr. Gordon Gray, Convener of the Overseas Board of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I understand that active arrangements are being made among the Churches in Ireland to promote the co-ordinated planning of aid efforts in Sudan. Those proposals for developments are being undertaken in conjunction

273
with the established church organisations in Sudan and in the neighbouring parts of Kenya, Uganda and Egypt. The proposals will be aimed to include measures to give suitable relief aid to meet the plight of the peoples of Sudan, to work for the cessation of civil war and guerilla fighting and to alert the active attention of the international community to the urgent need for appropriate action.
The past history and reports of current events in Sudan are complex and difficult to disentangle in order to enable positive and reasoned aid action. Professional diplomats and experts in Sudan affairs appear reluctant to make firm pronouncements on the kind of concerted action that is required. After recent consultations with some Sudanese people now in London I believe that the objectives are clear. All efforts should be designed to help towards the establishment of an accountable democratic government; the provision of equitable law and order; the laying of foundations for economic development; and the enhancement of the social well-being of the Sudanese people based on acceptable standards of civil liberties, human rights and lasting peace.
In that connection I believe that it is important that in any proposal for action aid we fully recognise that Sudan is the largest country in Africa, with frontiers on the borders of eight other sovereign states. Other factors are that the United Kingdom and other governments have made vast amounts of finance, goods and services available to Sudan in humanitarian relief efforts. There are also partnership arrangements between the government and non-governmental agencies, as well as the amount of voluntary aid giving by the general public. However, it is obvious from the deplorable events about which we have heard this evening, about which we have read and about which we have been told by the Sudanese that more requires to be done to rescue, remedy and rebuild the Sudan community. We heard in reality and in detail an account of the terrible suffering of the Sudanese given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I cover a broader canvas, but it is important to ensure that the details are made to work. My broader canvas includes more detail of the accountability of others to look at the needs of the Sudanese.
I believe that, while much has been done by way of aid to the civilian population, there is a serious lack of committed political will and urgency by the UK Government and among the international community organisations to deal in an open and constructive way with the realities of Sudan's future. I recognise that urgent and constructive action is needed but at the same time caution and diplomacy are essential. It may be that, with the present alignment of opposing ideological power blocs, precipitate action will cause a worse and more difficult situation. We cannot ignore those facts.
It may be helpful if the Minister will tell the House the Government's policy on international community action. There appears to be a reluctance by the Government to place Sudan matters on the agendas of the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign Office. They appear to have a low priority in
274
both those departments. Sudan is low on the agenda of parliamentary affairs. The last date on which Sudan was mentioned in a general way was on 30th January 1991, almost two years ago. It was a debate tabled by the Official Opposition Party in another place on the subject of famine in sub-Saharan Africa. I understand from the Inter-Parliamentary Union that there has not been a visit to Sudan under the auspices of the IPU since 1975. The last Sudanese parliamentary group to visit London was in 1978.
In that connection it will be helpful if the Minister can explain the extent of the current bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the Sudan Transitional National Assembly. Furthermore, what is the extent of the United Kingdom's import and export trade with Sudan? Have government departments approved any United Kingdom contracts for public works construction in Sudan? It is important to have those facts. They may reveal a relationship at government level which is not reflected in what is seen to be reciprocated by the Sudanese powers which are in control.
The situation in Sudan is exceptionally grave. Among the many organisations interested in the future happiness and well-being of the Sudanese the following points are a consensus for action. I wish to quote from a fortnightly publication issued by a number of Sudanese who are living in the United Kingdom and other countries outside Sudan. They detail a number of the matters described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and conclude by stating:
"we honestly fear that Sudan is on the verge of becoming another Somalia or Bosnia unless swift and immediate international action is taken. We humbly urge the International Community, Nations, Humanitarian Organisations, Non-governmental Organisations, Churches and Individuals to co-operate and ensure that the United Nations Resolution on Sudan addresses the Need for Conflict Resolution, Humanitarian Aid and Human Rights".
I wish to conclude by outlining some of the recommendations put forward by one of the foremost international non-governmental organisations which I shall not name at this stage. It is a consensus on what is considered to be necessary and feasible to cope with the serious situation in Sudan. The first recommendation is:
"Donor governments should convene a donors' meeting early in 1993 to examine human rights abuses, Sudan's humanitarian needs and the Sudan Government's food export request.
EC Governments, including HMG, should urge the UN Secretary General to convene the Security Council to discuss the human rights situation in Sudan and to consider further international means, including within the United Nations system, to ameliorate the humanitarian situation in Sudan.
HMG should use every occasion—within the UN, within the EC, within the Commonwealth, and in other fora—to secure conditions in which a just and democratic political settlement can take place".
Finally:
"If the Sudanese government continues to abuse the human rights of the Sudanese people, the international community should apply further sanctions, including an arms embargo, and should consider the first range of options for humanitarian intervention that are open to the United Nations under this Charter".

275
I have not given notice to the noble Baroness of my questions but I look forward to her replies to the matters that other noble Lords and I have raised this evening.
9 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for raising this matter this evening and for continuing to strive to find a date for it. I am delighted that she has found a date on which I am able to join in the debate.
It is a sign of the gravity, complexity and the horror of the situation that many of the humanitarian organisations which have been able to give information to your Lordships about the situation in Sudan do not wish to be named lest they should be hindered in the work that they are doing. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether some of the workers working on entirely humanitarian lines will be given visas to go back to the country. I am particularly lucky to have been briefed for this debate by a personal friend who has been working on and off for quite a long time in Sudan and who knows as much about the situation as anyone.
This country has a special responsibility to respond to the situation in Sudan. I believe that that is based on two main pillars: first, our previous involvement with the country which means that the Sudanese themselves recognise that we have a responsibility, because of our record in the past, to help them in the future; the second—and this is probably part of the noble Baroness's foundation for her interest—is the necessity that we have still as part of Christendom to try to help in a situation in which people are suffering because of their faith. As Christians we are called upon to help anyone who is suffering because of his faith but we have it on the authority of St. Paul that we have a special duty to those of the household of the faith. In western Europe we should take that seriously. For a very large part it is the Christian communities which are suffering so badly.
The position is appalling. We have heard a great many details already and I shall not take up your Lordships' time in repeating them. I should like to mention three particular points. The first is the Iranian involvement in this matter: the production of arms, the mounting of a holy war against the Christian population, and the interest in oil combined with the two.
Secondly, there is the threat to the Nuban people; and many of your Lordships will have read the letter in The Times today on that subject. Thirdly, there is the fact that it is not merely a matter of religion. The moderate Moslems are being threatened, killed and massacred almost as much as the Christians.
There are two points, both of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, but to which I should like to draw particular attention as a shopping list for the Government, particularly as regards what they urge the United Nations to do because what is needed is a strong United Nations initiative in this area. The first point, which has been
276
mentioned by both previous speakers is the free passage of civilians from Juba. That is a humanitarian matter of the greatest importance and urgency.
The second point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is an arms embargo. The flow of largely Iranian arms, which are almost certainly western arms from Europe, into the hands of the government conducting their jihad in Sudan must be stopped. The United Nations has the right and the power to be able to achieve that.
Those are the points which I should like to put to Her Majesty's Government this evening. I hope that we shall be given a positive answer from the noble Baroness this evening.
9.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I too express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for posing this Question which is so crucial, and which should be crucial to many in our country at present. I saw evidence of that late last summer when a Church leader from behind the lines in the southern Sudan —a most saintly and magnificent man who had spent months walking round the whole area as a kind of apostle for his people even though they were starving and suffering at the time—came to stay with us. Having got out from behind the lines, he met me and he spoke to many people in Coventry and Warwickshire. I shall never forget the impact that he made as he described the forgotten war which no one is reading about, hearing about, or knowing much about in this country. There are not many of your Lordships hearing about it in this House this evening. It is a war in which many are dying or are abandoned and alone. As he said, "We die and the world keeps quiet".
Questions arose from large congregations in all parts of the country who heard him speak. Why are our Government not taking a political initiative on this matter and why have we never heard them speaking of it? Why do we know nothing about it? What are the media doing about it? What are the United Nations doing about it? Those were penetrating, innocent and direct questions which are reflected in the Unstarred Question this evening.
I thought that the dignity, authority and inspiring quality with which that man described the situation of a church in a place of untold horror was really saddening. To him it certainly seemed to convey a neglect on the part of the western Church and a failure on the part of European governments, but particularly our Government with all their responsibility for shaping the country in the past, to make any political intervention. The Sudan which I had experienced in the 1970s and 1980s when I was general secretary of the Church Missionary Society was a very different Sudan. It was liberal-minded, humane and positive in many ways. It was a different kind of Islamic faith. I remember a fellow passenger travelling out on Sudan Airways remarking that he felt closer in spirit to his Christian landlady in London than to some of the Moslem fanatics whom he hoped would never come to power in his own country. Now they have, and moderate Moslems like him must fear and suffer.

277
I see the beginnings looming of a great catastrophe in that country about which we have heard so little and about which I do not believe any government have done sufficient—certainly not our own—in political terms. As a result of the United Nations action, originally in respect of the Kurds and now in Somalia, and the debate over Bosnia, we are seeing a widening feeling among people in this country and other countries that the extreme denial of human rights, massive human suffering and near genocide in any part of the world should be met by some kind of intervention by the United Nations.
In the Sudan we are witnessing the imminent possibility, as noble Lords have already said, of a disaster which is even greater than that in Somalia. What action is our Government prepared to take? There has been nine years of war; intolerable suffering caused not only by war, but also by terrible injustices and misgovernment which is ruthless and widespread; an abuse of powers by the Sudanese Government, and of course one must say also the conflict of murderous factions in the Sudan People's Liberation Army on the other side. But the Government show abuse not only in combat areas but in the whole country—terrible, inexcusable violations of human rights, the most recent of which has been the killing of local or foreign aid workers. In September in Juba they even executed local US aid workers. They are depriving people of food, blocking the way to good health and frustrating the non-government organisation staff who are trying to help. All that is extremely alarming.
In addition, we have heard from other noble Lords about the change of religion being imposed in order to secure food and other actions of that kind. Nearly 2 million Sudanese have died, not just in war or even for resisting the government, but as victims of enforced starvation, massacres and wrongful assault. We have heard already this evening about the treatment of refugees in the north who were forced out of Khartoum into desert camps; deprived of water, food and medical aid; abused and ill-treated. We heard about the beleaguered Juba and other towns in the south and the refugee camps where ordinary non-combatant populations are subject to a reign of terror, sudden arrest and torture in the infamous and notorious White House in Juba. That reminds me of stories of President Amin at his worst in Uganda.
We heard about the Nuba mountains. I visited there and remember the happy communities; the sense of a pre-Islamic culture even though many of them were Moslems. I remember how some of our own Church leaders came from that area where the Church is now growing. Yet in that place we now see thousands being killed on ethnic grounds alone; villages are attacked; women are raped. It is near to genocide and an upheaval of the whole population.
All that has emerged since the rise to power of the present government, strongly influenced by the National Islamic Front—the previous Party—and indeed by Iran imposing a terrible security system across the whole country. It is a fearful distortion of Islam—we must not call it "Islam". That kind of imposition of the Sharia law since 1991 and that kind
278
of interpretation of the Jihad, which is everywhere preached without qualification both in the south and in the north, is serious. There seems to be some kind of an Iranian-inspired deliberate thrust towards East Africa in the preaching and propaganda that I have heard, as well as an Iranian thrust towards the former Chevron oil fields found in the south.
The Sudanese Government are trying to put a polite front on all that when one speaks to them. They are experts at sounding convincing when assuring one of their good intentions. I know because I have met and discussed with representatives and at first trusted what they said to me until I discovered that it was simply not the reality. They have even managed to suborn an Anglican bishop into their ranks to be a kind of front man in the Cabinet. One can imagine the sense of betrayal felt by every Church person that I have heard speak of him.
I trust that our Government can give us more than answers about the magnificent aid which they have already given. Aid alone is not in question; it is a question of political action. I trust that they will run the risk of not colluding with the deceptive assurances of the Sudanese Government. Far more is needed. The Senate of the United States Congress has already begun to act. On 2nd October 1992 it recognised that the government of Sudan engages in a consistent pattern of gross violation of internationally recognised human rights; that they wage war in battle without regard to the civilian population and that the government of Sudan engages in gross abuses of human rights elsewhere in the country, including the campaign of forced displacement of tens of thousands in Nuba.
It recognised all those things and decided to resolve to ask the President of the United States to meet with the United Nations Secretary-General to arrange the convening of the Security Council to discuss the human rights situation and to consider further intervention. I trust that the new President is likely to respond to that pressure and persuasion in the United States. I do not think that we should believe any assurances of change or improvement. I do not believe that we should leave the Americans to act alone as we appear to be doing somewhat in Somalia. I do not believe that the Sudan Government can adequately meet the questions that we are asking at the moment about human rights. We should look critically at their request to export tonnes of food, including products for animal foods, to the European Community. We should be asking a great many more questions about that.
I believe that the northern government in Sudan is now on the verge of a big offensive. It is at this moment that Her Majesty's Government should urge the United Nations Secretary-General to convene the Security Council to discuss this human rights situation and to consider international pressure to relieve the vast human suffering; to ensure the safe conducts that we have already heard about, and to try to press an arms embargo which, if the United Nations were to press it, Iran might still be persuaded to comply with.
We have heard talk this evening of another Somalia. Indeed, when one thinks about the figures

279
—and I hate to bandy them because one person suffering is enough—and a total population of 8 million in Somalia and one under threat of famine of 5 million; and when one turns to the 26.2 million in the Sudan and a population under famine threat of 7.5 million, one begins to see the scale of what we are facing. There is real danger of a greater disaster in another part of Africa of which we seem to have heard in this country amazingly little not only from the Government, as I have said, but from anyone else. I believe that this matter must be taken to the United Nations to avert another catastrophe. Nothing less, and no reassuring replies otherwise, will do. Juba is a place of appalling suffering at this time just like other besieged cities such as Sarajevo on which we have concentrated, and with a much deeper danger of the total extermination of a large part of the population if it is allowed to go on.
So I urge that Her Majesty's Government take this even more seriously than I know they already have and seek public and political action to remedy this wrong.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, as I served twice in Africa as a diplomat and was brought up there, and as I have visited Sudan in earlier years and known many distinguished and honourable Sudanese both from the north and the south, I feel particular sorrow and concern at the terrible situation in the south today as well as some shame that I had not fully realised how appalling it has long been.
Not so long ago the world knew what was happening in the Gulag and behind the Iron Curtain, only with great difficulty. We heard of what was happening in Afghanistan where the Russians were waging a colonial war, through such courageous and distinguished journalists as Sandy Gall. Now we know what is happening in the former Yugoslavia just as we followed the Gulf War on television. Yesterday the US military operation to safeguard aid operations in Somalia was on the television screens at the very moment of landing.
But without my noble friend Lady Cox, her courage and persistence both in seeing for herself and in bringing what she has seen to the world's attention both in this House and elsewhere, we should apparently know virtually nothing about the forgotten war; the ethnic cleansing; and the reported selling of some women and children into slavery; and the destruction of whole communities which has been going on with unremitting ferocity in Southern Sudan for nine long years since the advent of the Nimeri regime, pledged to the conversion of all non-Moslems, Christians and animists alike.
Since 1989 the regime has of course become yet more militantly fundamentalist. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is not truly Islamic any more. I need not repeat what my noble friend has said. A whole nation is being destroyed both in terms of its peoples and its economic and social infrastructure. When the dry season begins again in January we can expect military operations by the Sudanese Army to be renewed with yet greater force.
280
In any case, we are witnessing the displacement of some 3 million people—a vast human tragedy in terms of refugees —not least people whose only crime in the eyes of the regime in Khartoum is apparently to be Christian or animist. They are reportedly being forced to embrace the Islamic faith, to die or to be taken into slavery or forcible relocation in the desert in what amounts to extermination camps.
It is hard for us to imagine the courage and desperate strength of those minors who walked from Southern Sudan to Kenya via Ethiopia to escape and those who still resist conversion and retain their Christian faith. But the world is not hearing about these apparent flagrant violations of human rights, nor the ethnic cleansing which we so condemn in Yugoslavia and indeed in Iraq.
I believe that both the US Senate and the European Parliament have passed resolutions calling on the UN to concern itself urgently with the situation and to make what representations it can, given that the UN as yet has no mandate to intervene in the internal affairs of the country on the issue of human rights. I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government have associated themselves with such representation. I realise, however, that first there is a long history of Islamic expansion within and into black Africa, of which this is a further and more militant phase. There will be some powerful Islamic states which, far from agreeing to bring UN pressure to bear in Khartoum, will be likely at least to condone, in some cases actively to support, a fundamentalist regime. Iran is an obvious example. The UN cannot act effectively unless there is a real consensus, and that takes time and long, patient and discreet negotiations. To do it by megaphone, to quote our earlier debate on Hong Kong in this Chamber today, will be counterproductive at government level.
I am quite sure, too,—although I hope to hear this categorically stated by my noble friend the Minister —that we will have suspended any bilateral aid, whether humanitarian or development aid, to Khartoum long since, because the Khartoum Government's actions in the south not only gravely infringe human rights, but cannot possibly be described as good government when they are destroying what economic structure there was.
In this connection, I should like to ask: what are the criteria of the International Monetary Fund which, I believe, has recently granted financial aid to the Khartoum Government? Even if it is not required to relate its aid to the human rights record of a receiving country, as we do, can it really call what is being done "good government"? I realise that my noble friend the Minister may not be able to answer that now, but I should like to know later. Are any stipulations made by the IMF about ensuring that a proper share of the aid goes to the south, and that it is not made conditional by Khartoum on conversion to Islam, as is apparently the case in the distribution of humanitarian aid? I should like to hear from my noble friend the Minister how we now distribute humanitarian aid. It is absolutely unacceptable that the delivery of that aid should be impeded. Are the nongovernmental organisations prevented from going in

281
through Kenya or Uganda to deliver aid where it is most wanted? If not, could not Her Majesty's Government's former humanitarian allocation and, indeed, the share destined for development, be translated into trucks, lorries, farm implements and grinders for corn?
In short, I realise that in dealing with the Khartoum Government, we can as a government use only the most delicate and gradual moral pressure, preferably through other more moderate Islamic states, to bring about a change. I am confident that Her Majesty's Government are proceeding in just that way. However, that should not prevent, first, specific encouragement to the media to go and see and to tell the story to the world. That would at least bring in more voluntary aid for the NGOs to distribute. I was much heartened by the excellent letter on the Nuba in The Times today. We need more of that. Secondly, it should not prevent moves to deliver our official aid, both humanitarian and developmental, through adjacent countries such as Kenya and Uganda. The actions of the Khartoum Government are, after all, creating large numbers of homeless and dispossessed people who can escape only into neighbouring countries which are poor themselves. A way must be found to get the aid where it is needed. Thirdly, there must be moves to persuade the IMF, the World Bank, and the European Development Council to withdraw all support from the Khartoum Government unless a mechanism of oversight can be developed which specifically ensures that a proper proportion of that aid actually reaches the south.
Finally, although I recognise that this is a delicate time to pursue the question of the Khartoum Government's human rights record when the Islamic states are themselves exercised by what they see as our failure to protect Moslems in Bosnia, in practical terms we have no levers to exert since Khartoum does not need our aid, given the powerful support which it is receiving from Iran, and no sanctions could be effective. Still, we must speak out loudly and clearly here today. I hope, through the responsible members of the media, to tell the world what is happening and to send a message of admiration and support from a Christian country to suffering Christians, and especially from Britain which has had so long and honourable a connection with Sudan.
9.23 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the previous two speakers addressed the House from a background of first-hand knowledge of Sudan. I cannot claim that advantage and therefore certainly will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. The last time that I was in Khartoum was 40 years ago when I was passing through to southern Africa.
My initial reason for wishing to speak in this debate was my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and for her heroic humanitarian efforts. My second reason—and in the same connection—was the horror stories which the noble Baroness retailed tonight and of which she has made me aware.
282
I am very glad on this Christian occasion when there is so much ecumenical pressure that I am able to bring a message through Cafod, the Catholic body which has done so much for many years in that part of the world, from the Catholic bishops in the Sudan. On the last occasion I was less than courteous to one of the right reverend Prelates but on this occasion I am full of admiration for, and in respectful agreement with, the right reverend Prelate. I shall come to that in a moment.
I have studied this matter rather intensively, not only with the help of Cafod but with the help of a lady and gentleman who know that part of the world very well. The gentleman has spent many years in the Sudan and neighbouring countries. I was talking to him again this evening. In that sense I come with knowledge which has recently been obtained. We are all aware of the horrors in the Sudan. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others could have spoken for hours on the subject. No one doubts the horrors of the place. But we are left asking ourselves what we are going to do about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that we must not betray the people of Sudan. I feel that that is the right way of approaching it, but how much can we do unilaterally? We could do more than we are doing now but unilaterally our achievement would be limited. It does not excuse us for not improving on our present performance, but we must look to the international effort, a point stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and other speakers.
I wish to give strong and clear support to the right reverend Prelate. Are the Government prepared to do what the right reverend Prelate suggested? Are they prepared to approach the Secretary General and call for a meeting of the Security Council? I ask the question but I do not necessarily expect the Minister to answer tonight. However, I expect an answer on the next occasion because it is a question that cannot be ducked. The answer is a straightforward yes or no. It is not a question where any evasion is possible, although a certain postponement may be necessary at this hour of the evening.
I do not say that everything else is subsidiary to that issue but everything else pales into relative insignificance compared with that. Are the Government ready to place this on the agenda at the highest possible level in the biggest possible way? If they do not do that —I do not ask the noble Baroness to answer the question tonight—they will be shirking their duty and doing what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said. If we in Britain are not doing that much we shall be betraying the Sudan.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should just like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in asking this Question on the situation in south Sudan. I do so with much diffidence, not least because of a general reluctance to intervene in the affairs of another country, especially one with which we have generally had friendly relations. Furthermore, Sudan is the largest country in Africa and also the poorest, with very few resources. It must be desperately difficult to govern.

283
I should like to say a few words on the situation in Juba, but before doing so perhaps I may mention a number of factors that have a bearing on the present situation. First, since its foundation in the seventh century AD, Islam has had periods of militancy and periods of relative quietness. Now, spurred on by Moslem fundamentalists, Islam appears to be entering a new period of militancy. From many Islamic countries there are reports of persecution of minority religions, including Christianity, which itself overseas —sadly not in this country—is very much on a growth tack. So the two religions are coming together on a collision course.
Secondly, as was the case in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, religion and politics in Islamic countries are pretty well the same thing. What is more, they determine the legal system.
Thirdly, the people of south Sudan are different from the people of north Sudan ethnically and in their religion. For most of known history they have not been part of the same country as north Sudan. They do not want to become Moslems and they do not want Sharia law. Their fears of being discriminated against have proved to be all too justified, and to say that their human rights, especially religious freedom, are being denied would be the understatement of the year.
Perhaps I may now turn to the situation in Juba, the capital of the south, which is currently a battlefield for the warring factions. A recent report has said that the "massacre continues unabated". There are at least 250,000 people virtually imprisoned in the city. The main roads from it have been mined to deter escape. Another eye-witness has stated that lynch law is the practice of the day. Recent reports say that people are being crucified in north Sudan. The latest reports say that that is also happening in south Sudan. Youths are arrested without reason and are never seen alive again. Women are taken in for questioning, raped, killed and then thrown in the river. In the words of one eye-witness, the population is in "absolute fear".
The food situation is desperate. Some people cultivated food along the banks of the Nile. Just before it could be harvested, soldiers destroyed the crops and the fields were mined. The people of Juba feel abandoned by the West and, in particular, by the Christian Churches of the West. They know that we are their only chance, and they are aware of what is being done in Bosnia. They cannot understand why there is so much outcry and horror over what is happening in Bosnia while there is no outcry or horror apparent about south Sudan, even from their fellow Christians. For that reason I congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this matter in your Lordships' House.
In the past few days Moslem governments meeting in Jeddah have expressed their concern about the situation of Moslems in Bosnia, as they are fully entitled to do. Likewise, the governments of Christian countries are entitled to be anxious about the fate of Christians in south Sudan. It is not our job to tell the Sudan Government how to run their country. However, there are limits to the means that can be used to enforce their policies. In the light of what the
284
noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other speakers have described, the world will not be able to go on doing nothing indefinitely.
What can we do to help? I have four suggestions, none of them very original: first, I should like to see the Government and private organisations setting up a group to monitor the position as closely as possible. I was struck by the success of the results achieved by monitoring and keeping matters in the public eye when Russia was denting the human rights of some of its citizens. It is important to have a monitoring group set up to watch the situation as closely as possible and to keep it in the public eye.
Secondly, the Government should bring to the notice of the United Nations any serious denial of human rights, especially a denial of freedom of religion as laid down in paragraph 18 of the 1948 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Thirdly, we should give all possible support to attempts by the United Nations to improve the situation in south Sudan. Fourthly, if the food position in Juba does not improve, we should press the United Nations to take food there as it is doing now in Somalia.
I should like to make one further point. With the increased militancy of Islam, the growth of the Christian Churches overseas, the increase in the world's population, the damage to the world's environment and the gap between rich and poor countries, situations such as those in south Sudan and Somalia will become even more frequent and more dangerous to world order than they are at present. That is something which long-term planners will have to take into account.
9.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, in a volume of reminiscences called Yet being Someone Other, Sir Laurens van der Post tells the story of a wartime venture when he was in command of a camel train taking supplies and ammunition from the Sudan to the Allied forces in Ethiopia. After a gruelling journey they reached their rendezvous to find no one there. Ahead towered the huge escarpment leading to the central Ethiopian plateau. Should they go on in the hope of making contact—which would mean manhandling their loads up that precipitous trail, a mile into the sky—or turn back? The young Sudanese drivers were weary, homesick and reluctant and held a council. What decided them to go on was the speech of an older Sudanese who said simply: "You are too young to remember the time before government"—by which he meant the Sudan Political Service—"came to our country. But I do remember, and if Government asks me to carry this load up there by myself, I will do it"
That is a moving story and I quote it to remind us of the achievement of some of the finest colonial judges and administrators ever to go out from the United Kingdom. They laid the foundations of the modern Sudan. Most of what they created has tragically been thrown away. What has never perished is the tradition in the hearts of the African peoples of southern Sudan that the West in general and Britain in

285
particular are their friends and friends, moreover, who believe in justice and loyalty. It is to the West that the African Sudanese look in their present anguish.
This link is strengthened by the Christian Churches. Like all the African Churches, those in the Sudan are now fully indigenous. But the Sudanese Christians treasure their ties with the nations that brought the faith to them. In the suppression of religious freedom which they are today enduring, they rightly look to the world-wide Church to stand alongside them. The Sudan Catholic Bishops' Conference and the Anglican bishops and the New Sudan Council of Churches have appealed to the world to take note of what is happening.
The diocese in which I have the honour to serve has for 20 years had a special partnership with the Episcopal Church of the Sudan. During that time, we have built up by exchange visits, aid projects, educational programmes and personal contact a very considerable awareness of and insight into Sudanese affairs. In the light of that knowledge, I have no doubt that this is the most perilous hour for the basic human freedoms of African Sudanese since the days of slavery.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox —to whom we are grateful for this opportunity—harrowing details of the privations endured by some of the 5 million Sudanese displaced from their homes by the present war. Let me add briefly to that from our own Church evidence. An experienced eyewitness visiting one of the camps in the desert outside Khartoum, to which, as we have heard, southern refugees have been forcibly evicted, wrote:
"Conditions rival any I have seen … the heartlessness of the forced removal is matched only by the total lack of amenities".
A team from our diocese recently went to camps of Sudanese refugees in Uganda. In Yondu, a fairly small camp of originally 8,000 women and children was growing at the rate of 3,000 a week. The frontier camp at Nimule is thought to hold half a million people, but who can be sure? Even in Uganda, aid convoys that try to make the arduous journey are ambushed by brigands and in southern Sudan the corridors for transport are even more hazardous.
We have already heard of the hunger and disease in Juba. A letter from the war zone there the other day contained these words:
"Lucky are the people in Yugoslavia and Somalia for the world is with them. Condemned are the people of Juba, for the world has no access and no interest to know".
It would be easy to say, "Yes, this is all very sad, but it is the result of internal rebellion against the de jure government of an independent sovereign state and that means there is little we can do". I understand that line, but I believe that it mistakes both the history and the present reality.
The second civil war, which began in 1983 while I was myself visiting the Sudan, was itself a protest against injustice: the political fragmentation of the south—and forced fragmentation; the unfair plans for southern oil; the threat to the environment and way of life from the Jonglei Canal project; the Arabisation programme; and the imposition of Sharia law on the
286
Sudanese. Because of the lack of a proper constitution and basic legal code there was nothing to which an African could appeal for redress of grievance. The whole system made human rights, as we understand them, impossible.
Indeed one of the problems we face today is that the Sudanese Government does not culturally operate with the concept of human rights, which it regards as cover for Western interference. But we need to keep in mind that the vast majority of African Sudanese, although indeed they understandably sympathise with the SPLA, have never been involved in the war at all. They are simply the grass on which the elephants fight. All they have ever wanted is a fair, non-sectarian system with equal justice and equal opportunities for all, and it is for them that the world community has a right and a duty to be concerned.
After the abortive SPLA attempt during the past summer to seize Juba, the people there have been the victims of a reign of terror by the intelligence and security organisations, of which we have heard something from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. Even the mutilated bodies of schoolboys have been taken from the Nile with their school bags still tied to their backs. The very officers and men of the Sudanese Army have been victims.
Similarly after the attack by the Nazir faction of the SPLA on Malakal in October, reliable reports indicate that the Government's security officers arrested more than 150 officials and political figures, some of whom were tortured and executed. Both in the north and south the competing operations of no fewer than five internal security organisations mean, as always, that suspicion and mistrust are setting colleague against colleague, friend against friend. Open and honest discussion of the nation's problems is impossible.
There is a danger, when one is a representative of a Christian community, that comments of this kind will be heard as being anti-Moslem. This is all the more so when much violation of human rights has a religious character. Let me say with all the force at my command that neither in the Sudan nor out of it do the Churches see their plea for justice as an attack on Islam. If diplomatic influence on Khartoum is to have support from moderate Islamic states, it is vital to make this clear.
What Sudanese Christians want is a constitution and system of justice which guarantees religious liberty for all—Moslem, Christian, and indigenous African religion alike. They had enjoyed such freedom. They know its value. That makes its loss all the more poignant. For make no mistake, it has been lost. It was already under threat during the days of President Nimeiry when churches in the Nuba mountains were burnt down or bulldozed, and permission to build regularly refused. Violence and murder against Christians were not uncommon in that area even then. Since that time such crimes have become more general.
Priests and catechists have been tortured and killed. Church workers and religious from abroad have been deported. At least one bishop has been arrested and maltreated in detention without formal charge. Harassment, victimisation and discrimination are the

287
norm. In particular I would draw your Lordships' attention to discrimination in the educational system. At the youngest end, children are not now admitted to primary education unless they have first attended two years of a Moslem halwa to be instructed in the Islamic faith. At the other end, adherence to Islam is now a condition for admission to university.
What can the world do? Some would like to see a United Nations-sponsored constitutional conference at which all parties could negotiate the kind of legal basis for a unified state to which I have referred. This, if it could be achieved, would be the greatest prize but I have to say that I see little prospect of this. The only pressure that might have brought it about was a military stalemate. With Iranian backing for the government forces and an SPLA split over policy and with diminished sources of supply, such a stalemate looks increasingly improbable. The swing to the government in the fortunes of war was probably the biggest single reason for the collapse of the Abuja talks. There seems little hope of resuming them now.
Similarly, much as we would all like to see a Western-led arms embargo, I am afraid the prospects for one are frankly non-existent—all the more so in view of the shoddy record of the West in the Iran-Iraq conflict. I believe the most likely way forward is through diplomatic and economic pressure linked to humanitarian aid. The suffering of the innocent Sudanese people needs to be highlighted around the world beginning, as everyone in this debate has urged, in the Security Council of the United Nations. The corridors for aid delivery already negotiated by the United Nations need to be made secure. Outside organisations and the United Nations observers must have access to all the areas in which displaced persons are currently in need, and all aid must go through them and not through the Sudanese Government. The prime requirement is to prime the Sudan open to unhindered world inspection and make it clear that the present government will not have international support until that happens. If we can achieve that, further improvements might follow.
I had a brother-in-law who years ago went to work in the Sudan for a multinational company. Tragically, he was killed in an accident shortly afterwards but he was a man of wide travel and experience. He said that of all the peoples among whom he had worked, the Sudanese were those with whom he had felt happiest and most at home. Many of us know what he meant.
This debate tonight is known about by those people. Hopes have been pinned upon it. Let it not just be for the record. Let us hear from the Minister some assurance that those hopes will not have been in vain.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, how ironic it is that at a moment in history when the world was rejoicing at the collapse of the second great tyranny which has afflicted this century, we should discover that what lay beneath it was not a simple longing for freedom but a seething mass of racial and tribal hatred. In spite of two massive and catastrophic world wars, the earth seems to be more full of hatred and destruction than ever. And if you add to racial intolerance the elements
288
of politics and religion the mixture becomes as explosive as anything the human race has yet managed to devise. In the course of only this day in your Lordships' House we have heard of intolerance and tyranny in Indonesia and in China; the newspapers are daily full of Serbian atrocities in Bosnia, and today brings the news of the armed relief mission to Somalia.
Yet there are other tyrannies to be fought, and the Sudan is as grave a case as any even though it never makes the headlines. Here the poisons of racial hatred, political oppression and religious intolerance are as powerful and as murderous as anywhere in the world. Yet the world does little to stop the systematic destruction of a fine and historic people and of a land which has the potential to be the agricultural saviour of a whole region of Africa. It needs only peace, organisation and water. What it receives is warfare and the unholy piling up of weaponry.
No civilised country will countenance the suppression of all religions save one, all political opinions save one, and all racial types save one. And yet the Sudanese Government give every indication of doing exactly that; and they give every indication of using all the means at their disposal to do so. Their armed forces continue to fight a useless and inhuman war against their own citizens. Wholesale imprisonment and deportation are the order of the day, and religious persecution is at a level of frenzy.
Yet much of that is done in the name of righteousness. Atrocities are committed in the cause of jihad, the "holy war". No war is holy; and no convictions, political or religious, can condone slaughter and oppression. Such things done in the name of militancy or fundamentalism are every bit as evil as such things done cynically. God save us from the convictions which allow the ends to justify the means. I am reminded of a verse of Chesterton's:
"Likelier the barricades shall blare Slaughter below and smoke above And death and hate and hell declare That men have found a thing to love".
What hope can our Government see of bringing some sense of compassion and decency into the actions of the Sudanese Government? Is there anything that the Government, or any of us, can do for the desperate people of the Sudan, caught as they are by the twin claws of starvation and oppression? Or do we and the Government despair of it? We must not. A country which has been in the past so much under our influence, and indeed within our power, deserves better of us. Not only history but humanity demands it of us.
There is a new and terrible phrase abroad, invented in Yugoslavia and known to the world for years in its actions, but which now echoes across the world—"ethnic cleansing". Its evil brothers are political cleansing and religious cleansing. In the Sudan what is in need of cleansing is not the race, or the politics, or the religions of its people but the hearts and minds of the powerful.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, only this morning I was chairing a meeting concerning protective action for Bosnia. Today is a sombre moment, not only for

289
Sarajevo but also for many places in the Sudan. It is in that context that I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us an eye-witness account of the sufferings of the people in a place that should be a fertile and prosperous country. We all admire her courage and commitment in delivering personally much-needed supplies to places where most people fear to tread. Such actions are all the more necessary because there are few, if any, foreign journalists allowed in the Sudan and the movements of diplomats are strictly limited by the Government of the Sudan.
It may be helpful if I try to sketch a little of the history and background. The Sudan is a country of nearly 1 million square miles—the size of most of Western Europe. Its coast faces Saudi Arabia and, as has been mentioned, its land frontiers march with those of eight other African states. It became independent in 1956 and since then there have been some 26 years of military rule. The armed forces consume 40 per cent. or more of the government budget.
Since June 1989 the National Islamic Front has been in power. As is well known, that is a fundamentalist coalition of intellectuals, officers and others. For more than 18 years the south has been in revolt, with a period of uncertain peace between 1972 and 1983. Since then there has been little by way of education or medical service in the south. War, drought, floods, famine and disease have laid waste not only the south but also the Nuba Mountains and other areas. A major cause of war has been the attempt to impose Islamic law and the Arabic language on non-Islamic peoples.
The result of these mainly man-made disasters has been a dramatic scattering of people. The total number of refugees and displaced people may well be even greater than that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. My information is that 2 million to 3 million Sudanese are dispersed in all the inhabited parts of Egypt; 350,000 or so work in other Arab countries. Zaire contains some 600,000 refugees; Kenya up to 200,000; Uganda of the order of 100,000; Ethiopia and other countries some 50,000. In addition —as if that were not enough—there are some 2½ million displaced people living in appalling conditions, as we have heard, in the Khartoum region. The displaced therefore amount to some 6 million out of a total theoretical population of about 27 million.
There is little doubt that food and water have been used by the NIF government as levers to force Christians and others to convert to Islam. I have myself met an eye-witness to the selling of children into slavery. Indeed, he had himself redeemed some of them. Your Lordships will know that under the Koran a Moslem may only own a non-Moslem slave. There is some evidence, as has already been touched upon, that crucifixion has been used by the army and government militias as a punishment and in order to inspire terror. Some churches—for example, those in El Obeid and El Nahud—have been closed and many missionaries have been expelled, notably from Juba. Such things happen despite the Sudan's adherence to
290
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and People's Rights and the Convention against Torture.
It is regrettable that the government in the Sudan seem to have been encouraged to violate basic human rights by their contacts with such other countries as Libya and Iran. In June the Economist reported that the Sudan was selling millet to Libya valued at £7 million in order to be able to purchase weapons. That occurred at the very moment when it was asking for 130,000 tonnes of grain relief from the European Community in order to feed its western provinces. Iran is reported to have built a powerful radio transmitter near Port Sudan and to be completing new naval and air bases nearby. Four thousand tonnes of weapons are said to have been delivered from Iranian sources during October. Are these weapons, I wonder, intended for a government offensive in the south during the dry season, beginning from now onwards?
When the major city of Malakal was recently taken by the SPLA, six Iranian military advisers were captured. Other Iranians are thought to have been piloting Sudanese military aircraft. All these developments are profoundly worrying to friendly neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kenya.
I am glad to say that world opinion is now beginning to focus strongly on the Sudan despite the lack of press and diplomatic observers. In August this year the Catholic bishops sent out a clear appeal from Lusaka, which they repeated from Rome in October. They did not hesitate to use the word "genocide". On 8th October the United States Congress, as has been mentioned, approved a resolution on human rights and humanitarian relief. That was followed a month later by an even stronger resolution in the European Parliament. Japan has cut off all aid except for humanitarian relief. The United Nations appointed Dr. Gaspar Biro as a special rapporteur for the Sudan. Has Dr. Biro begun work and will he receive all the facilities that he needs, for example, to travel where he wants and to see whom he wishes without fear of reprisals on those he sees?
I was glad to hear by letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that a resolution on the Sudan is being prepared for discussion at the Third Committee of the forthcoming UN General Assembly. But I am sure that everyone will agree that that is not nearly enough. We need positive action from the Security Council, as many speakers have said.
Turning to the domestic front, are Her Majesty's Government fully satisfied about the personnel of the Sudanese Embassy in London? I understand that a considerable proportion of the people working there do not enjoy diplomatic status. Will the Government seek to increase the number of broadcasts on the BBC World Service in English and in other languages which are capable of reaching the Sudan? That service is very often the only source of true information available in remote regions. It is doubly important in an era of propaganda and lies.
The Sudan is massively in debt. In 1990 it owed 13 billion dollars and since 1989 the Sudanese pound has

291
fallen in value by a factor of 11 or 12. The debt thus exceeds the estimated annual gross domestic product. Those who hold that debt should insist on an immediate ceasefire, followed by real negotiations for peace and an appropriate constitution. The Nigerian Government are much to be congratulated on their efforts which brought about negotiations last summer at Abuja. Alas, the negotiations were adjourned without agreement being reached. New attempts are therefore necessary. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will play their part in the desperately needed work for peace and that full use will be made of all available techniques for conflict resolution.
292
Earlier we spoke about safe havens for the Bosnians. Safe havens have been mentioned again this evening as being vitally needed in the south Sudan. They are necessary before even the ceasefire can be agreed in order that there is interim protection for vulnerable people. I hope that all donor countries which have poured in large quantities of aid and relief during the past 10 or 20 years will now concentrate their minds on protection for the most vulnerable people. One hopes that that will lead to a ceasefire and to a permanent peace.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House shares the admiration expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the indefatigable work of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. In Sudan and in many areas where human rights are violated she works on behalf of the people and shares their sufferings. She brings back graphic reports which enable us to understand the plight of those people far better than we would otherwise. She then raises those matters effectively in your Lordships' House. We all owe her an enormous debt of gratitude.
The noble Baroness has rightly singled out the Government of Sudan—military dictators—for criticism this evening because their record is deplorable as I can say from my knowledge of the situation, although that is not as great as hers. I am chairman of the parliamentary human rights group and we have listened to the representations of the Sudan human rights organisations. We have received a good many letters and reports from people who have experience on the ground. I can confirm what has been said by other noble Lords: we have been asked not to mention names because that might jeopardise the work. That is an indication of the Sudan Government's attitude to any kind of criticism.
The problem is that so far the Sudanese have proved to be completely impervious to outside criticism, pressures or influence. As I understand it, our Government ceased development aid in January 1991, which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Park, will be pleased to hear, and they continued to express to the regime their great anxiety about the lack of respect for fundamental freedoms including the freedom of religion, as Ministers have assured the parliamentary human rights group.
The Government joined our EC partners in supporting the decision of the UN Commission on Human Rights to appoint a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in Sudan. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will say whether or not the Sudanese Government have agreed to co-operate with the human rights rapporteur in his investigation.
In regard to the civil war in the south, the Government have made it clear that they expect a solution to be found by negotiation and not on the battlefield. They have approved the efforts of the Nigerians to act as mediators. The second round of the talks was due to begin again on Saturday, according to Nigerian spokesmen, but it has been deferred. It would be useful if the Minister would take this opportunity to say something about the prospects for the resumption of talks.
As my noble friend said, Britain is historically responsible for the creation of modern Sudan. We joined the Arab, Moslem north to the black Christian south. We delineated the boundaries of Sudan at the end of the 19th century and we handed over to the northern politicians who secured the acquiescence of the south by promising to consider federalism after independence. Of course, they failed to deliver that and for 17 years after independence there was a low intensity civil war until the 1972 Addis Ababa
294
agreement which gave regional autonomy to the south. That carried some hope of a solution with it. However, Nimeiry (who was one of the parties to the agreement) abrogated it in 1983, and as we have heard, attempted to impose the Sharia which reignited the civil war.
My impression is that the second round of talks, if they resume at Abuja or elsewhere, is unlikely to succeed for two reasons. First, the SPLA has split into three factions, and some of the heaviest fighting has been between Colonel John Garang and his deputy Mr. William Nyuon, who was head of the SPLA delegation in Abuja. The disagreement between them appears to have stemmed at least to some extent from Mr. Nyuon's agreement to a unified SPLA delegation at Abuja so that the prospects for any accord among the southerners as to who should represent them at a resumed meeting must be extremely dim.
Mr. Nyuon and Mr. Riak Machar, who defected earlier with 25,000 men and withdrew them to the eastern bank of the Nile, are both of the Nuer tribe, whereas Colonel John Garang is a Dinka. Therefore, tribal rivalry is added to political differences. As has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Beaumont, the Iranians are pouring millions of dollars-worth of arms into Sudan—and my estimate is 600 million dollars —mainly from China, I am informed, making it a springboard for Teheran's long-term plan to spread its Khomeinist ideology throughout north and central Africa.
Several noble Lords said that that huge arsenal cannot be intended for the defence of Sudan because there is no foreign threat to her territorial integrity. But the enormous growth of Sudan's military potential and the presence of 30 Iranian military advisers in Khartoum—referred to in the Sunday Times on 1st November—constitutes a threat to peace. That is why I agree with all noble Lords who said that the matter must be referred to the Security Council. It is a serious threat to peace. I should like the Minister to say whether the Government are taking it seriously and what information they have regarding the activities and intentions of Iran in the region.
I read in the newsletter issued by the Sudanese Embassy that last week a 32-man delegation from Iran, headed by Chief Justice Mohammed Yazdi, and including security intelligence officers, was in Khartoum. The Chief Justice took the opportunity of denying that there were any military personnel from Iran in Sudan. It would be useful to know whether the Government have any evidence of their presence. We heard of the three Iranians captured in the south. I believe that there is solid evidence, but it should be brought to the public attention and raised as part of our case in the United Nations for saying that a threat to peace exists.
According to the Arabic daily newspaper, Al-Sharg al-Awsat, of 30th November, Iran is preparing to hold a meeting in Khartoum in February 1993 for the Khomeinist groups, which they support in 19 countries. They were discussing with the Sudanese the establishment of an international secretariat in Khartoum. The Chief Justice said that Iran's relations

295
with Sudan were of strategic importance, and he indicated that Tehran was planning a massive increase in aid to Sudan.
As many noble Lords said, if the Nigerian-brokered talks are almost certain to fail, should we not be looking for some alternative solutions to the agony of the south which has claimed an estimated 600,000 lives according to Médecins sans Frontières? There are now four warlords competing for the territory, counting the government as one of them. The position is therefore just as desperate, as has been said, as that of Somalia and demands just as radical a solution. But unlike Somalia, they have a de jure power, however little southern territory it controls. I wonder whether the authorities in Khartoum could be persuaded to hand over the administration of Juba to the United Nations, if at the same time the rebel factions would agree to a cease fire. If that could be done, then the relief work could be enormously accelerated; the grisly phenomenon of extra-judicial killings could be ended and the Sudanese Government would be relieved of a substantial military burden. The way would be open to a constitutional conference such as has been suggested to tackle the difficult questions left unresolved at Abuja—the present religion, the unity of the state and the self-determination of the south.
The alternative is too frightful to contemplate. I was given the estimate of 316,000 people being holed up in Juba with no clean water, no electricity, no telephones, no medicines and very little to eat. According to Amnesty International the army executed 300 people without trial following the SPLA attacks on the city in June and July, and demolished the houses of nearly one-third of the inhabitants to create free fire zones in the suburbs. Hundreds of people were reported to have been arrested and the whereabouts of many others remains unknown. The ordeal of the weakened and demoralised inhabitants subjected to that reign of terror defies the imagination. At the same time, the devastation of the whole region and the advancing government forces into areas previously held by the SPLA forced many thousands of new refugees over the border into Kenya. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury referred to the huge influx of refugees into Kenya and Uganda. We heard estimates that as many as half a million have been displaced internally by the fighting.
It should be noted that the Government, in response to international criticism of what happened in Juba, set up a judicial committee under the chairmanship of Judge Muhamad Ahmed Abu-Sin,
"to inquire into the events that took place in Juba during June and July".
Unfortunately, the judiciary in Sudan is not independent and any judge who gives a ruling that the government do not like is taking a very serious risk as the example of Judge Bushara Abdalla Bushara may illustrate. Mr. Fadl Ahmed applied to the court for an order that an autopsy be carried out on his son, Dr. Ali Fadl, a prominent member of the Sudan Doctors Union, who had died under torture on 21st April 1990. Judge Bushara ruled that the initial report, which had been made by the general secretary of the
296
Islamic Medical Association and his deputy, did not comply with recognised medico-legal procedures. The two army doctors who certified that the cause of death was cerebral malaria were not considered to be reliable by the judge. He ordered that a second report he made by Dr. Yassin Abdalla Ahmed Imam.
The family of the victim then filed criminal charges which were rejected by a different judge and then by the Attorney-General, who apparently has a judicial role in Sudan. The family then petitioned Judge Bushara again and he granted them access to police and medical reports. On the basis of those the family then preferred legal charges against the security forces. But when an inquiry was begun by the magistrates that was aborted when pressure was brought to bear by the government and Judge Bushara was forced to retire. The lawyer who had acted for the family has had his licence to practise revoked.
The case of Dr. Fadl was cited in a recent BMA report on the involvement of doctors in human rights abuses under the title Medicine Betrayed which I commend to your Lordships' attention. The BMA makes some practical suggestions. It appeals,
"to the international medical community to encourage effective opposition to torture in countries where the pressure for medical participation in human rights violations is considerable".
That is certainly the case in Sudan. It must be extremely difficult for doctors employed in the public services in Sudan to denounce torture, but they are under an absolute moral obligation not to countenance torture or any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Equally, doctors elsewhere in the world should invite the Islamic Medical Association to condemn torture and to discipline any of its members who are involved in cruelty.
I mention these cases because the law, the medical profession and the universities have all been subverted by the dictator, General al-Bashir. The Washington-based Fund for Peace published a detailed report in May this year on the abuse of academic freedom in Sudan which makes very sad reading because the universities had a proud record of liberal studies under the British. The government took power to appoint vice-chancellors and appointed a hard liner who was also a long-time member of the National Islamic Front, the military's principal backers, to the vice-chancellorship of the University of Khartoum.
Then all the universities were compelled to use Arabic as the teaching medium, putting southerners at a competitive disadvantage. We have heard about the compulsory Islamic instruction being introduced not just for Moslems but for all students. In the University of Khartoum an alleged 25 students were expelled over two years to May 1991 for political reasons. Early this year the widespread arrests of students took place in the University of Khartoum. New legislation gives the chairman of the National Council for Higher Education and the secretary-general of the council, who is also a long-time NIF member, the power to dismiss academics for ideological reasons.
In April 1992 four University of Khartoum professors were dismissed out of hand and without explanation by presidential decree. One of them was Professor Mohammed Al-Amin Al-Tom, who is

297
Sudan's only professor of mathematics. Not surprisingly, many academics have fled into exile and in higher education as a whole academic standards have plummeted.
We have heard that it is not only in the South that whole peoples have been targeted by the malevolent regime of General Al-Bashir. The plight of the Nuba people in the province of Kordofan has been highlighted by several of your Lordships and by many human rights organisations such as Africa Watch, Amnesty International, Sudan Update and Sudan Monitor. All have given detailed accounts of the situation. Nuba Mountains Solidarity appealed to the UN human rights chief, Jan Eliasson, when he visited Sudan on 13th September, to stop the government's brutal treatment of their Nuba subjects. I should like to know whether the Minister has any knowledge of the results of Mr. Eliasson's visit and whether he was allowed to visit Southern Kordofan to speak to detainees and to check the government's claim that all those who were forcibly removed from their homes, ostensibly to protect them from harm when the SPLA moved into the area, have now been allowed to return as the Sudanese Embassy claims.
According to a US AID report of 7th October 1992, forced relocation of Nubans was still continuing and the governor of Kordofan had ordered that 25,000 to 30,000 people who had been at Kadugli be moved to five other places in Northern Kordofan. It reported that UN personnel and NGOs were prohibited from visiting the Kadugli area, but local organisations reported that 80 per cent. of the children in the camps were malnourished; diarrhoea and skin infections were rampant, and there was no medicine to treat the sick.
The policy of gratuitously moving people from one location to another is not confined to the provinces. In the Khartoum area, as many as 700,000 internal refugees from Upper Nile and Bahr El Ghazal states in the south have been compulsorily relocated into five official sites outside the city, where they are totally dependent on relief aid. As has been said, only Islamic organisations are given access to them. Another 1.3 million are still threatened with relocation, despite growing international protests. The Sudanese authorities have not allowed international agencies to provide basic services for any of the uprooted people, who are living in the most appalling squalor and destitution.
It is impossible for any of us to convey in a few minutes the extent of the human rights violations in Sudan today, and the dangers posed by Khartoum's policies to the whole region. Not content with beggaring their own people, persecuting the intelligent, and driving hundreds of thousands of them into exhile, they are trying to export intolerance and thuggery to Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, and their acquisition of a sophisticated arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a very serious threat to peace. We cannot afford to wait until the volcano erupts. We must take action by asking the Security Council to consider this matter as one of urgency.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, this has been a disturbing debate. We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for having provided this opportunity to focus on a grave situation which presents such a formidable challenge to humanitarian concern. The noble Baroness is widely respected both inside and outside this House for her courage and commitment on such issues. She is no armchair commentator, as her determination to be out there in the front line, working alongside those in need, seeing for herself, has repeatedly made clear. We must therefore take her observations to heart.
The situation in Sudan is bad enough. But, as my noble friend Lord Blease and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, have emphasised, it raises wider issues—issues which must be urgently faced if similar tragedies are not to be repeated around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Lords have spoken about the refugees and displaced people in and around Sudan. There are between 40 million and 50 million refugees and displaced people in the world as a whole, and that is expected to rise to 100 million by the year 2000. Think of it: 100 million individual men, women and children destined to a miserable existence of fear, anxiety, malnutrition, disease, suffering, total insecurity and premature death. At a time of so much concern about immigration and asylum policies—about keeping people out —what kind of myopia is it that fails to recognise that massive world-wide instability and migration can only increase the flow of those desperately trying to take their children to a better life? What kind of global policies are needed to treat the causes rather than the symptoms?
As the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Coventry and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, in our concern about Sudan there are lessons in Somalia and, indeed, in Yugoslavia. In Somalia we see, belatedly, at the behest of the United States a determined intervention to ensure that the humanitarian relief reaches those in need. But why has it taken 300,000 deaths there before that happened? What could have been done at a far earlier stage to prevent the slide into anarchy and chaos? Why did action have to wait for the end of the US election and a decision in Washington?
This is not the first time that the UN has settled for the role of tagging behind and authorising decisive US initiatives. But is this a sound basis for global governance? Great credit is due to President Bush—of course it is—for acting, but why are the world's governments, which together make the UN, with all the insight and experience of the UN system at their disposal, unable collectively to generate a genuinely international will for timely humanitarian initiatives based on early warning and forward looking analysis? What is the role and record of our own Government and Permanent Representative at the UN in promoting this kind of imaginative and pre-emptive diplomacy?
How far is the United Kingdom taking a lead in what must become one of the most acute debates in international affairs: the degree to which sovereignty can be allowed to inhibit effective international

299
humanitarian action when accountable, legitimate or decent government is totally absent and the inevitable need for such international action is becoming obvious? Indeed, what are the long-term implications for internal self-generating development and self-determination when failure to act in time necessitates large-scale intervention at the eleventh hour plus, as has happened in Somalia? And related to that, what is the Government's position on the totally unacceptable difference in status, grimly illustrated repeatedly in Sudan, between those who as a consequence of tribulation cross a national frontier, acquiring the designation of "refugee" with UNHCR protection, and those who as a consequence of equally harrowing experiences move within their own strife-ridden country but do not happen to cross a frontier and are thereby categorised merely as "displaced people"? The greatly respected High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, has repeatedly drawn attention to this inhumane distinction. On what remedies are the Government working? Why are safe havens right within Iraq but not elsewhere; not least in Bosnia, incidentally? Could they be appropriate in Sudan?
Turning to the immediate situation in Sudan, the FAO harvest mission started work there last month. Its report should be available by the end of December. Some believe it possible that that report will indicate a national surplus, with good harvests from the irrigated and mechanised sectors. Future plans will certainly have to take that report fully into account. However, we are all agreed in this debate tonight that it is civil war which punishes the people of Sudan. Since independence in 1956 that country has had only 10 years of peace between the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972 and the resumption of the civil war in 1983, a resumption in which I found myself caught up on a visit to Juba and the surrounding area.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was right to remind us that since 1989 the war has been characterised as a jihad by the Moslem northern Sudanese dominated government, and has in recent years resulted in increased victimisation, harassment and danger for civilians. As a result of the intensification of the fighting, relief needs have drastically increased, while access to the population has decreased. Development work has also become increasingly difficult. Recent peace talks have failed to produce results and the various parties and factions seem as intransigent, hostile and at least as far apart as ever.
Although exact figures are not available, it is clear that millions are suffering. Conflict is of course mainly confined, as we have heard, to the Christian and Animist southern areas and the transitional zone between the northern and southern regions. Since the last and continuing major government offensive, which began last January, an estimated 1 million southerners have been displaced either forcibly or by fear of insecurity. Communities have been destroyed in military actions, cattle have been raided and crops have been burnt or stolen. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury has powerfully described, this process of disruption has created widespread suffering and impoverishment.
300
However, directly or indirectly, the effect of the civil war has been profound on the lives of people in the north as well as in the south. Vast amounts of resources have been committed to maintaining military campaigns; resources that could be better used for the development and welfare of the country. Lives are threatened and lost not just by the fighting but, on a far larger scale, by food insecurity, disease and disruption of traditional lifestyles.
The scale of the disruption and displacement is vast. For example, over 1 million southern displaced people barely exist within greater Khartoum. Many of those people do not have adequate food rations, shelter, clothing, health care, sanitation or emergency services, because of a lack of accessibility and the inability of international agencies to deliver humanitarian services in areas of conflict.
The southern displaced people have become effectively what have been aptly described as "refugees in their own country", and have been referred to in the Khartoum press as "infidels". They have been evicted forcibly from settled squatter communities or their traditional lands into so called peace villages and camps. Rural production has been undermined. As we have heard tonight, there are repeated reports of arrest and torture, and of the Sudan Government attempting systematically to purge government-held areas of all dissenting groups.
Amnesty International has recently chronicled the depredations of the Juba security authorities in their attempts to eradicate any group suspected of posing a threat, following the SPLA's attacks on that city. Recently, local European Community and UN staff have been executed in Juba itself. The "peace villages" and camps are being serviced, almost exclusively, by Sudanese NGOs, mostly Islamic. Repeatedly, the Sudan Government have promised international agencies access to those camps to provide humanitarian assistance, but so far such access has not materialised because of obstruction by that same government.
In fact, there seems to be a co-ordinated policy by the political and security authorities to isolate displaced people from the international agencies. That containerisation of the southern population has put the Islamic relief agencies in a de facto position of supporting the Government's political and military objectives while at the same time discharging their own Islamic mission. If there is little reliable information about the true needs of the displaced groups in Sudan in their appalling plight, it has to be recognised that that is due primarily to the evident lack of co-operation by the Sudan Government refusing permission for assessment missions in the north and south.
Whatever the balance of justice referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has stressed, reports indicate that brutality and repression are not the monopoly of any one party to the civil war. The UN has recommended that pending the report of the special mission sent to investigate the deaths of two UN staff members in south Sudan last October, non-essential operations in SPLA-controlled areas should be suspended. An

301
important feature of the SPLA's tactics has reportedly been the destruction of crops and widespread cattle raiding which exacerbate historical tribal animosity. In Juba, agro-pasturalist groups tell of ongoing cattle raiding and crop destruction by SPLA-backed militias. Many of those pasturalists have been compelled to move to Juba with their meagre possessions in an attempt to maintain at least a minimum subsistence level.
While the Sudan Government restrict movement in and out of the city, there is also evidently fear among the displaced, who would like to return to their villages and cattle camps, that if they do so their few assets will be stolen, their children will be coerced into the SPLA militia and their women will be abused and maltreated. The SPLA has recently threatened to shoot down food relief flights and to close Juba airport. It has shelled the city of Juba constantly for weeks on end. Naturally, it is the civilian population that has suffered. Against those stark realities, it seems, sadly, that the UN's attempt to address humanitarian needs through Operation Lifeline Sudan has proved unable adequately to protect the interests of the poor and vulnerable in south Sudan.
In Khartoum, the UN appears to lack the necessary strength, co-ordination and cohesiveness for effective representations and authority. In the face of an intransigent Sudan Government, who are often accused of showing little compassionate regard for their own people, the UN has been marginalised in its attempt to deliver goods. In effect, the Khartoum Government exercise the power of veto over where OLS flights can land in south Sudan.
The UN does not appear to have been able to stand up for the principles of OLS by ensuring access to vital supplies to those most in need. Observers report numerous examples where the Sudan Government should have been challenged for stonewalling international access.
As my noble friend Lord Longford has reminded us, what is being sought by a growing number of those with humanitarian concern for the people of the Sudan is that the UN should take a more proactive role in protecting the well-being of those affected by the war and the consequences of government action. Certainly in this respect it would be useful to hear the United Kingdom Government's assessment of the record of the new humanitarian affairs arrangements at the United Nations.
Six vital steps at least have been advocated by key humanitarian players. They include those outlined tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont, Lord Robertson, Lord Hylton and Lord Avebury. The first is to appoint a very senior UN representative with clout, with the full direct backing and authority of the United Nations Secretary General himself. This person could have a regional brief for the overall crisis in the Horn. The second is to provide an effective umbrella for the humanitarian work of the international NGOs by pressing the Sudan Government and the SPLA to allow such NGOs to have unrestricted access to areas of need and by insisting that neither side has a veto
302
over relief flights. The third is to press the Sudan Government and the SPLA to allow free movement of people throughout Sudan; the fourth to establish corridors of peace—in other words, specific guaranteed overland relief routes in southern Sudan; the fifth to appoint human rights observers with open access to all detention centres, relocation zones and areas of conflict, especially the large garrison towns; and sixthly, to explore further options for taking forward the peace process such as, for example, a UN sponsored constitutional conference.
It is vital to hear the United Kingdom Government's position on these proposals. The UN is not a self-contained separate entity. It is in the end nothing more nor less than the governments of which it is comprised. It is the will and resolve of those governments and their commitment which create the context in which the Secretary General and his colleagues can effectively act. What will the United Kingdom Government urgently do to support the Secretary General in taking stronger action and to help him secure a report on human rights in Sudan for consideration by the UN General Assembly in the Security Council?
If Somalia and Yugoslavia have taught us nothing else, they have surely demonstrated that the international community has to act in time. Now is the time—it is already very late—to make the plans to be implemented if all else fails; plans to protect humanitarian access routes by UN troops and, if need be, to apply an arms embargo. Now is the time, above all, to demonstrate that globally and consistently, not just on an ad hoc, piecemeal, arbitrary basis, the UN is determined to take its humanitarian mandate as seriously as any other. Would that in the orgy of introspective European pre-occupations our leaders meeting in Edinburgh these next few days could lift their eyes to the global challenges that face Europe in the wider world of which it is inseparably a part. Of no other issue is this more true than of the Sudan which we have been debating today.
10.38 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Cox has, as usual, introduced a most timely debate. She has done so with the authority of having made a brave visit to Sudan earlier this year and I pay tribute to her. The affairs of Sudan attract depressingly little attention and I hope that my noble friend's debate tonight will help stimulate public interest in the terrible events which are unfolding in that unhappy country.
I should add that, although Sudan has not caught the British public's interest, the Government have not overlooked its needs, as I shall explain. I must disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease; we have been very active in Khartoum, Nairobi, London, Brussels and New York, to try to increase pressure on the government in Khartoum and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, to improve their human rights record and take a more responsible attitude to the delivery of relief to the needy. It is also important to keep in mind the fact that neither side in the dispute is entirely innocent. Both the Government of the

303
Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army have on occasion hampered relief and neither have exemplary human rights records.
Relations between the United Kingdom and Sudan have undergone a period of pronounced strain. This is not of our volition. The right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury in particular has stressed the friendship and affection that are felt towards Sudan by many in this country in all walks of life. The Sudanese people still habitually look upon the British as their oldest friends. But there are obstacles in the way of an improvement in relations—obstacles which we look to the Sudanese Government to remove.
The principal problems—discussed by so many noble Lords this evening—are the Sudanese Government's parlous human rights record; the lack of progress towards anything resembling an accountable form of government acceptable to all areas of the country, and all sectors of society—the last election was in 1986; Khartoum's apparent unwillingness to negotiate seriously to hasten a peaceful solution to the civil war in the south; obstruction experienced in the provision of desperately needed humanitarian relief. We do not see eye to eye with the authorities in Khartoum on a number of regional issues.
Finally, there is the charge that the Sudanese Government has an equivocal attitude towards terrorism. The release from prison last year of those responsible for the Acropole Hotel bombing in 1988, in which five Britons died, highlighted this point. We have warned the Sudanese Government in no uncertain terms of the consequences—both international and bilateral—of support for terrorist groups. These circumstances have persisted for some time. They caused us to terminate our programme of developmental aid to Sudan in January 1991: a programme which we have no plans to resume at present. They have prevented any improvement of relations ever since. We nevertheless consider it important to do everything we can on our side to maintain a dialogue with the Government of Sudan, in the hope of persuading them to ameliorate their policies. We do not consider that it would be in the interests of the Sudanese people to abandon this attempt.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the question of the Sudanese Embassy in London. There are 14 accredited diplomatic staff in the Sudanese Embassy in London, and three accredited non-diplomatic staff (service stall). We have no record of the locally-engaged staff at the embassy. While there is no obligation on embassies to inform us about locally engaged staff, we do request this information annually from all missions in London. The Sudanese Embassy has not replied to any notes in recent years. We have made it clear to the Sudanese authorities on a number of occasions that we expect all the staff of their embassy in London to behave in accordance with accepted diplomatic practice.
It is not easy to persevere in our objective of maintaining a dialogue. Our relations have if anything worsened in recent weeks. Noble Lords will be aware of the shocking events in the south, in Juba particularly. Among those whom the authorities
304
summarily executed there for suspected collusion with the enemy were Sudanese employees of the representative of the EC Commission, and employees of the US Embassy. These actions underlined to us, and to other countries, the circumstances of terror and oppression under which so many ordinary Sudanese people live their lives.
Our emergency aid to Sudan has formed an integral part of our efforts to avert widespread famine in the Horn of Africa. In Sudan, these efforts have been largely successful when measured against the 8.5 million people at risk at the height of the drought in mid-1991. But there are many reasons for shortages. This problem was brought to a head with the onset of the drought in 1990. The Sudan Government's reluctance to accept donor emergency aid and its antipathy to foreign relief agencies has obstructed the effective assessment and delivery of relief to those in need. But food has been successfully distributed to most drought-affected areas in the north through the concerted efforts of donors, UN agencies and NGOs. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that we were one of the first donors to pledge food aid at the start of the present food crisis. Since then, despite the Government of Sudan's obstructive tactics we have provided a continuous and substantial flow of carefully targeted bilateral emergency aid throughout Sudan, totalling over £37 million. Our aid is provided on the basis of need, regardless of political or religious affiliation. We are the second largest bilateral donor of emergency food aid, with commitments of nearly 100,000 tonnes since 1990.
South Sudan is fertile and potentially an important source of food for the whole country. However, civil war has not only destroyed its agricultural capacity but made it a candidate for food aid. The fighting has prevented agencies from delivering relief to the region.
We are concerned about obstacles by all sides in the civil war which have hindered deliveries of relief assistance to those in need. The Government of Sudan have frequently withdrawn permission for UN relief flights, causing severe localised deprivation. My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have suggested that we should press for both sides to allow NGOs unlimited access.
We have made just such representations both bilaterally and through the Community throughout 1992 to try to stabilise deliveries. The continuing lack of concern by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army, who have persistently breached UN Operation Lifeline Sudan's agreements, has prompted concerned countries, including Britain, to increase international pressure on both sides to allow relief to be delivered to those in need.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the UN has now resumed relief flights to most locations in the south, including Juba. In addition, a recent consensus by all factions offers improved prospects to sustain and expand air, road and river routes, creating corridors for relief. But the situation remains fragile.
I can assure my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth that we continue to provide emergency aid

305
to the south, as and where conditions permit, using UN agencies and NGOs, some of which are working in life-threatening circumstances. I would like to pay tribute to them. I must tell the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury that we do not channel our emergency aid through the Government of the Sudan. We have provided over £18.8 million in bilateral assistance to Operation Lifeline Sudan since it was established in 1989. This includes nearly 17,000 tonnes of food aid, most of which has had to be airlifted; an expensive but essential and often dangerous operation. The food has gone to feed people in Juba, and other besieged areas in the south.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Cox, who asked about improved logistics, we have also provided transport to help get the food through. We stand ready to do more if it is possible to do so. My noble friend Lady Cox's moving description of her recent visit to some of the camps for the displaced in south Sudan illustrates for us the plight of these poor people, the victims of a protracted civil war.
We are concerned that UN agencies and NGOs are frequently denied access to the displaced, thus hindering the delivery of emergency assistance. Nearly 3 million people may be affected.
About 1 million displaced persons, mainly from the south, are in camps around Khartoum and Kosti. As my noble friend Lady Cox has said, many have been forcibly located to inadequately provisioned sites. The Government of Sudan have treated them badly. I can assure my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth that as holders of the local presidency we led two EC démarches to try to improve their conditions. We support the UN's efforts to provide planned voluntary relocation to sites with adequate basic facilities. Overall, we have provided £6.4 million in bilateral emergency aid through British and Irish NGOs to help those unfortunate people.
The position of the British Government on the war is clear. We consider the Sudanese people should be allowed to seek a solution to their political problems by peaceful means. We send this message to all involved, whether the government or the factions of the SPLA: we welcome any effort to achieve this objective. With our EC partners we have consistently given our political support to the present initiative of the Nigerian Government to try to bring the parties to the civil war to the negotiating table. We are disappointed that the parties are not yet able to take up the Nigerians' invitation to a further meeting which was scheduled for this week. However, I am sure that the Nigerians will want to continue their patient and generous efforts. I am equally sure that we should not write off those efforts.
In relation to human rights, which have been raised by all speakers this evening, three main patterns of violation have given rise to concern. The first is on the political plane. What we understand as the fundamental conditions for a democratic society are presently absent in Sudan. All political parties have been dissolved. The trade unions have been re-established but are under tight political control. There is no freedom of public expression if that
306
involves any criticism of the régime. All institutions, including the army, government ministries and the universities, have been purged to ensure their orthodoxy.
The second issue is what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, described as the poison of religious discrimination. The Government of Sudan recognised in the first round of peace talks in Nigeria in June that Sudan was a "multi-religious, multi-ethnic" society. But, in practice, the churches experience a good deal of hostility and obstruction. We have heard this evening the remarks of the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Coventry and Salisbury. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, reminded us that the Catholic Church and Catholic organisations have made their views equally plain. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, stressed, we should remember that it is not just non-Moslem's human rights that are at risk.
Thirdly, there are groups of people who are particularly vulnerable. I have spoken about the displaced and about the shocking events in Juba. I would simply reinforce the concerns expressed by other noble Lords about the disturbing reports of ethnic cleansing coming from the Nuba hills. I read with alarm the letter from Survival International published in The Times today about the threat to the Nuba people. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that Jan Elliasson did not visit southern Kordofan in September, principally because there was no assurance that he would be able to speak freely to the Nuban people.
We have expressed our concern on those points to the Sudanese Government on numerous occasions, both bilaterally and in international fora. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we were active in Geneva in supporting the decision to appoint a special rapporteur on human rights and we fully support his efforts. In our capacity as holders of the EC presidency we made a formal démarche to the Sudanese Government in October. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in particular that with our EC partners we wholeheartedly and actively supported a resolution on human rights in Sudan which was carried by an overwhelming margin in the United Nations General Assembly last week.
The Sudanese Government respond that they are misunderstood. My response to that is simple: they should allow impartial observers to travel freely throughout Sudan to assess events for themselves. That would in particular allow us to establish the facts surrounding the circumstances noted by my noble friend Lady Cox in her speech of the civilians in Juba, Malakal and other towns in the south.
On the point of access to objective information, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also mentioned the role of the BBC. BBC World Service English language broadcasting can be heard in Sudan on a variety of frequencies. I shall write the rest of my reply to the noble Lord. He also mentioned the possibility of using the Sudanese debt. I am grateful for that prior knowledge. I shall write to him.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for his suggestion that the Government should look at the possibilities of further action through the United

307
Nations to alleviate the situation in Sudan. I note the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the UN should play a more proactive role. I should like to say at the outset that we rule out nothing on that score. The UN General Assembly has now given a clear message. It is under no illusion as to what is happening in Sudan. We have heard a number of interesting suggestions for further UN sponsored activity.
My noble friend Lady Cox raised the possibility of safe havens for southern civilians who are displaced. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested a UN special representative for Sudan and the Horn, the insertion of human rights observers and the convening by the UN of a peace conference. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised the possibility of an international arms embargo, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. But most of those ideas would probably need the support of the Security Council.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked for a yes or no answer from me on this point. I apologise to the noble Earl, but the role of the Security Council in the context of Sudan is difficult to decide upon. It is not clear from the situation in Sudan that there is a threat to international peace and security. The time may well come when the majority of council members considers that it does—the moment that there is some agreement
308
among UN members that pressure is most effectively exerted by reference to Sudan's human rights performance and therefore should be pursued in the General Assembly and in the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
There is no doubt that letters will be falling like snowflakes from the ODA in answer to the questions that I have not answered. I have done my best and the hour is late. I believe that the Government's policy towards Sudan is a clear and steadfast one. No one should be in any doubt as to our position, least of all the present government in Khartoum. Our overriding concern is to continue to help those who suffer most from the present state of affairs—the people of Sudan themselves, who have endured famine, poverty, war and repression with such dignity and stoicism. I should like to assure them that we shall continue to use the means at our disposal, whether through the targeted provision of humanitarian assistance or through diplomatic pressure, to help alleviate their plight.
I should once again like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox. I hope that she will think that I have given her at least a fair bite of the cherry.
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

  MUNICIPAL BUS COMPANIES: EMPLOYEE BUYOUTS
  MUNICIPAL BUS COMPANIES: EMPLOYEE BUYOUTS
  FENNELL REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION
  FENNELL REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION
  LONDON BUSES LTD: PRIVATISATION
  LONDON BUSES LTD: PRIVATISATION
  INDIAN URANIUM PRODUCTION: UK POLICY
  INDIAN URANIUM PRODUCTION: UK POLICY
  PLUTONIUM SUPPLIER STATES: POLICY
  PLUTONIUM SUPPLIER STATES: POLICY
  BOSNIA: VISIT REPORT
  BOSNIA: VISIT REPORT
  ODA: AID BUDGET
  ODA: AID BUDGET