House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Oct 1995

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North): I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak briefly before my hon. Friend the

Under-Secretary gets to his feet to reply to the debate. There is not time for me to follow the points raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), or develop any of his arguments, although I listened to his speech with great interest.

This has been a very high-quality debate indeed, so much so that it is quite difficult to decide which particular points to bring forward. I shall make one or two points quickly in the five minutes that I have.

I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was able to attend this first debate on science. That was symbolically very good news to us all, and I welcome that. He made the point about communications. I was going to say more about scientists learning to communicate better, but all I have time to say is that we had a rather good example today of how good arts people are at communicating science. I am not going to mention any of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, by name, as we know who they are. We heard some excellent speeches about science from people who specialised when at university-- indeed, I was at university at the same time as some of them--in the arts, not science.

I pay tribute to Government policy on science since the general election in 1992. It has been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no doubt that the announcements in 1992 following the general election were welcomed. The 1993 White Paper was welcomed by a large proportion of the science community. I do not believe that Labour Members would differ from that view.

However, I go along with those who have some reservations about the transfer of the Office of Science and Technology to the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall say no more than that because the point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. On the other hand--I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is listening--I have no reservations about my hon. Friend the Minister's commitment to science. At the press conference that he

Column 667

held in July this year shortly after the changes, he set out his views about science policy. I certainly hope that he will take it from me that, even though I have reservations about the mechanics of the process, I have none about the commitment to science that he has declared in the intervening months.

I have received a briefing note from the Institution of Electrical Engineers. I declare an interest in that every month or so I write an article for its review, so I clearly have a special interest in that organisation. The briefing makes a point that I particularly want to emphasise. It has not been referred to often in today's debate, which is about engineering as well as science. The briefing says: "The need for well -qualified chartered engineers has never been greater, if the United Kingdom is to remain competitive." The institution believes that one of the causes of the shortages which are now appearing of qualified engineers

"is the widely-held belief that engineering may not offer an attractive future. Nothing could be further from the truth." I agree with that. We know now that

"Graduates from engineering and science-based courses are finding it easier to get satisfactory jobs than many other graduates." Only the other night on television I saw a news item in which a company managing director said how difficult it was to get young qualified electronic engineers. We have been around this course before--skills shortages and shortages of graduates. It is coming up again. It is good news for us all. It ties in with what has been said in the debate about science and engineering. It is good news for us all that our young engineers and scientists have good prospects. It is good news that the average pay of engineers in industry is now reaching much better levels. That means that the work that we have done in the House to support engineering is paying off. The parliamentary group for engineering development is just one example of a group of Members of Parliament who have promoted engineering and science over the years. The good news is coming through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) made an excellent speech, but I differ with one point that he made. Sadly, he is not here, but I gave him notice of what I intended to say. He said that science was primarily about the creation of wealth. I do not agree with that. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) that science is about a great deal more than the creation of wealth. Therefore, I support those who have said in the debate that the Department for Education and Employment should perhaps have a little more input into science matters.

Having made that caveat, it follows--I suspect that this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey was driving at--that the creation of wealth is vital to science and vital to the future of Britain. That is why I conclude by drawing attention to the increasing opportunities for engineers. I do not mind if opportunities fall for lawyers, yuppies, accountants and media and social engineering groupies. I have insulted half my colleagues in the process of saying that.

The good news for the Government and for the country is that opportunities for engineers and scientists are increasing, according to the information that I am getting from the engineering and scientific institutions. That is a tribute to the Government's management of the economy.

Column 668

It means that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now presiding, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) admitted, over a better manufacturing industry and better exports. That is good news which we all welcome.

2.4 pm

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): This has, indeed, been a remarkable debate--full of thoughtful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House--and I am delighted to have the opportunity of replying.

This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box with the full title of Minister for Science and Technology although, as colleagues know, I was Minister for Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry for the past year and that is an important point. During my time as Minister for Technology, I dealt with many of the delivery mechanisms, which required a close understanding of what was happening within the Office of Science and Technology. At times it was frustrating that there was not a greater proximity between what I was attempting to do and what the OST was encouraging me to do.

The hon. Members for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) both mentioned the information super-highways and the policy that we have had to develop, with which I was involved, such as the importance of a research base for computing science in universities and ideas as to how one might introduce new content to the super-highways.

Content is as important as infrastructure because it is demand for the content that will pull through the upgrading of infrastructure, and not some national plan. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East came dangerously close to his leader's misconception, but I think that he is probably far too shrewd for that.

There is no need for a national plan on infrastructure. We want to encourage a diversity of content that is affordable, interesting and applicable, particularly in schools, so that we can build up people's confidence and appetite for the products of the super-highways, which will pull through the demand for upgrading from twisted copper pair--which, with compression, can already do a remarkable amount--to full optical fibre connections in some cases.

I was also responsible for the small firms merit award for research and technology and for the support for products under research scheme. Fascinating companies are coming forward, often made up of only one or two people, many having spun out of the universities. Many of the awards, especially those in the SMART category, were for professors or people who had been working in academic research schemes and had had an idea, which they were looking to develop into a commercial reality. We were providing help.

I was immensely encouraged and stimulated by the interface in many of our universities between those who were conducting the research, but at the same time realised that it should not be confined to them. They had a bursting desire to get out into the commercial world to find out whether there would be a profitable demand for their ideas. All those aspects and many more, including technology transfer and innovation, were part of my responsibilities--as were the teaching company and postgraduate

Column 669

partnership schemes, both of which I extended during my period in office. All the aspects were remarkably fascinating, but needed to be combined into a broader field. That is the logic of the merger of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Science and Technology. It was not cooked up one night after a drink at 1 am or 2 am, as some Opposition Members allege.

Mr. Battle: It was not an evening drink, but on a hot 4 July afternoon.

Mr. Taylor: Whatever time of day it was concocted, it was the result of a thoughtful process. As the former chief scientific adviser said, the OST had been a fledgling organisation when it was in the Office of Public Service and Science, but it had come of age. Once the organisation came of age--it was bursting with ideas, which the technology foresight process developed--it was a logical time for it to become part of a much more broadly based Department: the Department of Trade and Industry.

Sir William Stewart made that point, as did many other people, including the former chief scientist at the DTI, Dr. Geoff Robinson, who was referred to in the debate. In an article in "Research Fortnight" on 12 July, he said:

"Scientists have long argued that science is central to modern industrialised societies. They cannot be disappointed if the government has finally listened."

The Government listen. We understand the needs. The merger has taken place and the new system will be much more effective in delivering precisely the needs of the science base.

Mr. Dalyell: The merger was forged not after a drink, but in the heat of political necessity, on the anvil of political imperatives and very quickly, with more regard to politics than was good for science.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has always had a fluency in language. I am talking about fluency of policy, and we have achieved precisely that with the merger.

Mr. Robert Jackson: On the fluidity of policy--certainly, there was rapidity of policy--my hon. Friend says that the merger was a deeply contemplated move. I can tell him that there was never any suggestion at any time from any party or anybody who was consulted in preparing the White Paper that it would be an appropriate move.

Mr. Taylor: I was in the Government with my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) at that time in the humblest of all posts--that of bag carrier or parliamentary private secretary, to the then Minister for Public Services and Science, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Of course, the merger was not contemplated at that stage precisely because, as Sir William Stewart has said, the OST was then a fledgling organisation.

I was about to pay credit to my hon. Friend for his pioneering work then, to which he referred in his speech. It is the very success of the policies that he introduced which has given the OST the strength and capacity to be part of a broader organisation. The continuum of policy will not give substance to the genuine fears of my hon. Friend. I understand his profound concern, especially for the binary system on which he worked at the Department of Education and Science, as it then was. I greatly respect his comments and I assure him that while I cannot accept

Column 670

his conclusion about the need to redivide the DTI and OST, I accept his ambitions for the future of university-driven research. It is, I hope, safe in my hands--as it was in his when he was one of my predecessors.

I have a difficult task in the amount of time remaining to sum up the debate because so many subjects were covered. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whom I follow around the country as we attend the same experiments--though I might say that he follows me around the country, too- -

Mr. Battle: The Minister would have to move fast.

Mr. Taylor: I am known as "Speedy", so I can move fast. I will not give way to such jibes.

Unless the hon. Gentleman was making a series of interesting expenditure statements in his speech, his concerns for the science community are understood by the Government. We are not attempting to debase basic science. I am not sure whether he used the words "blue-skies vision" as part of his peroration or out of genuine anxiety for that activity.

The preservation of university blue-skies research is crucial to Britain's future and not only for wealth creation--a phrase that I have not found to be spat upon as dirty when I have visited universities. The understanding of the importance of the creation of wealth is as alive and well in our great universities as it should be. A failure to recognise that link has held certain universities back. In most cases, they are worried about lack of full responsiveness from the industrial community to the importance of blue-skies research. I have set as a key objective of my period as Minister for Science and Technology a strengthening of the interface between rich and productive basic science and industry.

I accept the criticisms--although not all of them, as I do not intend to be that generous--of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). There are enormous gaps in UK performance. That is why the research and development scoreboard has been published by the DTI. There is no point in a DTI Minister trying to pretend that things are better than they are. It is our job to stimulate industry to do better. That is why we have brought forward two competitiveness White Papers, warts and all.

The scoreboard has some frightening warts on it, given the paucity of research in some sectors of British industry, which are asking for annihilation in the competitive markets of the world unless they do something about it. Our great centres of excellence--the pharmaceutical industry is an obvious one--have thrived precisely because they understand that a strong industrial base depends on a strong basic science base. But I would also argue that a strong science base will thrive in the long term because there is a strong industrial base in similar sectors.

There should therefore be no embarrassment that we are bringing together the OST and the DTI. Indeed, I regard it as a signal achievement that we have recognised that to improve the performance of the overall economy and quality of life in Britain we must link the two.

In the fascinating lecture at the Royal Society recently--the Bernal lecture--the former chief scientific adviser said:

"My view after five years in Whitehall is that the emphasis by industrialists on the need for a strong science base has been as influential in achieving it as the concerns that allege under-funding by parts of the scientific community."

Column 671

That is a serious message. Too much whingeing by scientists as opposed to quiet rational thinking will undermine a broader public understanding of the science base. As I said when I was at the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Newcastle, and I have said it several times to some of the key scientists who have been to see me, my reaction is one of despair--it was also my reaction to some of the statements that were made about British science on the radio this morning--because scientists are doing the opposite to attempting to get a proper public understanding of the excellence of our science base and exactly what is being done to improve it.

Dr. Bray: Given the gaps in the research and development scoreboard, will the Minister examine in detail why the position is so much worse in British companies than in comparable companies overseas, in terms of their research intensity?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, we are analysing that because we are very concerned. The former President of the Board of Trade got into trouble at one point when he talked about a long tale in British industry of underperforming companies. Part of the reason for that is a lack of understanding of the importance of research, both applied and basic, and we are looking closely at that matter. If we are to improve this country's competitiveness, we may have to ensure that we improve the value added at all levels of our society. I entirely agree with the comments that have been made in the debate to the effect that if we are to survive we must use our wits, and our scientists' wits are as important as those of any other section of the community.

Before leaving the subject of the research and development scoreboard, I should say that the overall picture shows that we have performed better than our principal competitors over the past two years. This year, there was a net increase in research and development expenditure. However, having already talked of the flaws in taking averages because to do so overlooks the bad points, I shall not pursue that argument further.

It is important to recognise the benefits which could flow from the merger of the OST and the DTI. The current chief scientific adviser, Professor May, has written to me saying:

"The transdepartmental responsibilities of the Chief Scientific Adviser have been preserved entirely as a result of his new position."

Those are his words, not mine. He has already had extensive discussions throughout Government, including with the Prime Minister. These are early days during which the full force of the chief scientific adviser's role will need to be felt, but I assure hon. Members that he takes a keen interest in keeping the DTI up to scratch as well. Most importantly, there is no confusion in his mind about his role in relation to the DTI.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way once more, but I am conscious that I am running out of time.

Mr. Jackson: Does my hon. Friend think that the chief scientist would find it of assistance in performing his role if the Cabinet Committee, which formerly operated at the centre of those arrangements, were reinstated?

Mr. Taylor: The jury is out on that. All that I have said so far has to do with science playing an integral role

Column 672

in a broader committee on which the chief scientific adviser sits. I would therefore wait for him to say that he was concerned. The broader sphere of the competitiveness of the United Kingdom into which science fits is a better basis from which he can wield influence than a separate committee. As I said, one of the strengths of the position of chief scientific adviser is that he can speak out publicly, but I shall keep in close touch with him. His view and mine is that the integration of science into the influence on government is a positive step forward.

Mr. Battle rose --

Dr. Bray rose --

Mr. Taylor: I have an embarrassment of interventions, but I give way to the hon. Member for Leeds, West.

Mr. Battle: On a practical point, will the Minister inform the House what steps have been taken to get every other Government Department to respond with a plan setting out how they will respond to technology foresight? Is that being co-ordinated within the OST? Have such plans been drawn up, and will they be made publicly available?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, they have been drawn up and they are being pursued. The chief scientific adviser recently published an article in, I think, the CBI's journal pointing out that the key themes that emerged from the foresight exercise are now being examined and an implementation programme is being developed.

There were originally six priorities, but the EQUAL--extend quality life-- theme on which I am keen is now the seventh. We are incorporating them into science, engineering and technology portfolios and the Higher Education Funding Council's funding methods. We are also building new partnerships with industry using the foresight challenge competition, the teaching company scheme and the LINK programme and we are co-ordinating on reporting SET developments and progress within these priorities. Equally, we are examining them in the context of every other Government Department that has a delivery function. The chief scientific adviser has made that one of his highest priorities.

I welcome the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who has done tremendous work with the Science and Technology Committee. I am delighted that the Committee is to continue and will probably gain in strength due to its ability to range more widely. I am looking forward to being with the President of the Board of Trade in the Committee next week. I am sure that we shall be cross-questioned in some detail on various policies. I strongly welcome the report on genetics. We have not yet commented in detail on our reactions, but we shall soon do so. I agree with my hon. Friend that the subject is very important and needs to be given a full airing in the House, although that is a matter for the business managers, not for me. I have already commented on the scrutiny report, but we can go into further detail. My hon. Friend's key question related to whether we should have a science adviser at the DTI to follow Geoff Robinson. One of the points made was that the DTI was moving the focus of its work slightly downstream, which is one of the reasons why the link with the OST is so constructive, and pushing many of the activities into the

Column 673

sponsorship divisions to increase effectiveness in terms of the work of those divisions and regional policy. Science and technology activities will be fully integrated with other work aimed at industrial competitiveness. I agree that we need constantly to examine whether we are delivering the improved competitiveness effectively, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's words in mind.

Sir Giles Shaw: I take it that the fact that the Department's expenditure on science has fallen from £350 million in 1992-93 to £222 million this year in no way reflects on the absence of the chief scientific adviser. I should have thought that, had there been such a person, expenditure might not have fallen so dramatically.

Mr. Taylor: I beg to differ with my hon. Friend on that. We can consider that in Committee. Flippantly, I can assure him that that was not the salary of the former chief scientific adviser of the DTI. Seriously, there are some significant complications in DTI expenditure, largely stemming from the position of energy and the fast-breeder reactor and the problem of launch aid costs, which are considerable. Therefore the net effect has been a diminution of classified R and D spend in the DTI, not a diminution of the interest and effort of the DTI in that direction.

Many other hon. Members have contributed to the debate, which was at a high level. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) represents a full gamut of excellent universities. The only one that he did not mention was the London School of Economics, where I did some postgraduate work--sadly, not in what we would generally call science. I am afraid that those of us who represent the dismal science nevertheless still proudly hold up our heads.

My right hon. Friend made some strong arguments. I obviously cannot comment on those that touch on the budget of the Department at this stage, but we understand his anxiety about several aspects, such as international salience.

My right hon. Friend commented about responsive mode. If one undertakes a technology foresight exercise, the conclusions of that exercise are bound to form judgments in the minds of research councils, as they consider what to fund. The principal division of funding for the research councils is between responsive mode, whereby they have a peer review process of projects that are brought to them, and directive mode, whereby they try to fill in gaps or there are programmes that they wish to engage in.

So far, the research councils appear to be very clear in their minds that the balance is about right. The foresight programme is bound to influence them, perhaps more in the directive mode sense, but not exclusively. We should not be too worried about those connections.

I say in reply to the comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), that controversies always arise when people inquire more deeply into research council grants. In our opinion, the grants have been made after careful consideration and consultation, and the responsive mode aspect of what the research councils do

Column 674

is not affected. We are speaking about directive mode. Therefore the argument that the hon. Gentleman made about someone coming up with a good idea and its then being put out to tender does not really apply.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) made an important speech about intellectual property, which is often neglected. I was responsible for that in the previous year--not only now-- and I know that Lord Woolf is undertaking a wide-ranging review of civil procedure. As part of that review, a sub-committee chaired by Mr. Justice Jacob, the senior patent judge, is specifically considering intellectual property legislation. I take all my right hon. Friend's arguments seriously. I am actively involved in the World Intellectual Property Organisation discussions and the arrangements in respect of the treaty on intellectual property in respect of integrated circuits. We must make sure that the outcome of our discussions is effective because piracy, especially in the transfer of ideas in research and in multi-media for the super- highways, is a crucial problem.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke about short-term contracts. Due to the short time remaining, I shall write to him, but I reassure him that the report of the House of Lords Committee and the draft concordat of the vice- chancellors almost coincided, and therefore I do not believe that the House of Lords took into account what the concordat discussed. So far, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals appears to have reacted positively to the concordat and therefore there is not as much to be worried about as the hon. Gentleman alleges.

We believe that we are getting it about right. I understand all the problems of uncertainty arising from short-term contracts. As the President of the Board of Trade said in his opening remarks, American universities appear to have a good record with short-term contracts, but I pay tribute to some of the schemes now inquiring into ways in which we can alter that position. The university of Warwick has obtained funding for a scheme that will consider longer-term ideas. I do not have time to go into some of the other issues, but I nevertheless draw attention to the generic research that the Higher Education Funding Council for England has started, which is likely to alleviate some of the hon. Gentleman's worries.

We could spend hours debating the subject of the budget. It is up by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Over the past 10 years there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the science base, although clearly civilian and military research have been in decline. With just one minute left, I do not intend to go into that.

Ropy ROPAs are not ropy; the university of Cambridge is about the best. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge did not mean to criticise her own university.

We have had a remarkable debate. I have been unable to do justice to all my colleagues' comments, but I can confirm that we have a profound understanding of the importance of the science base simply because we want Britain to be competitive in the world.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Column 675

Mr. Kurt Frances

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

2.30 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): I shall first take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) to his new responsibilities as Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. As I am asking for something on behalf of a constituent, I should start by saying that I hope that my hon. Friend and I will be able to work together as well this afternoon as we did for two and a half years in the Whips Office. I am delighted that he has been given his new

responsibilities. The only person who will be sad about it is Her Majesty, who had her new Vice-Chamberlain plucked from her even before they had had much correspondence.

We miss from the Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is a fair and thoughtful man. I should like to thank him publicly for the enormous courtesy and care that he showed in dealing with the large number of immigration cases that I brought to his attention because of my constituency interest. I hope that we shall see him return to health and to office before too long. Mr. Kurt Frances and his mother, Mrs. Frances, are no longer my constituents, as they have moved to the constituency of Harrow, East. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) would have wished to be here. He has been entirely supportive of what I am saying and trying to do, but it is a complex case, and it would have been foolish to hand it on from one Member of Parliament to another, so I have carried on dealing with the case.

I wish to make a number of simple points and to place a few facts on record, so that my hon. Friend the Minister can respond to them, if not today, in writing at a future date. In my judgment, the problem stems from the fact that the right of Mrs. Frances to British citizenship was refused out of hand for so long. It was described in a letter as recently as 10 October 1995 from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, who said:

"Although his mother"--

Mrs. Frances--

"has an automatic claim to British citizenship, Mr. Frances is not a British citizen."

It is all very well for officials to say blandly:

"Although his mother has an automatic claim to British citizenship",

but it did not seem like that from the beginning. Mrs. Frances had a battle, which I shall detail, to establish her right to British citizenship.

All four of Kurt Frances's grandparents had British passports. Both his parents were born in what was then India, because they were both serving the Crown in the Indian army. One side of the family had been serving the Crown for more than one generation. Those people did a great deal for the then British empire, and it is tragic that a grandson of those people--a great grandson of someone who served the British Crown with distinction in India--should be treated as Kurt is being treated.

Column 676

My argument revolves almost entirely around the significance of when Mrs. Frances first applied for a British passport.

On 18 May 1995 I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North. It said:

"The earliest correspondence that Mrs. Frances had with the Immigration and Nationality Department was in November 1975". That is true, but it is not the whole story. Together with her younger sister, Mrs. Frances made her first application for the British passport to which she has always had a right, in 1954 in Karachi. Her application was rejected, on the ground that she was married. In 1955, she followed up her first application by requesting information about the possibility of obtaining a Pakistani passport. That is what she had been advised to do by the British high commission. Plainly--no one maintains anything different--that was not possible.

In 1959, Mrs. Frances applied for registration for herself and her minor children, and her application was rejected on 18 February 1960. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has a copy of that letter from the United Kingdom high commission in Karachi. It is signed by the second secretary, and says:

"I am directed by the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Pakistan to say that, after careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, he regrets that he is not prepared to authorise the registration of yourself and your minor children as citizens of the United Kingdom".

No one disputes the fact that that letter was factually wrong. In 1962, Mrs. Frances reapplied at the consulate-general in Lahore, and she was turned down on the same grounds. In 1966, she repeated her application, but was again turned down. In 1975, as I have mentioned, the first attempt was made to correspond directly with the Home Office. However, the designated Home Office official said that he was not in a position to answer Mrs. Frances's query. The official was clearly wrong--that fact is not disputed- -much to the disadvantage of Mrs. Frances, and now of Kurt Frances.

In 1984, Mrs. Frances made yet another attempt at the British high commission in Islamabad. That application had the first positive result-- some 30 years after Mrs. Frances had first applied. However, that did not lead to Mrs. Frances's being granted a British passport: she had to wait another seven years. In 1991, upon contacting the British high commission in Islamabad, she was issued with a British passport. It took Mrs. Frances 37 years to establish her birthright. That is a significant fact, which must be considered.

Although my next point has never been made to me by my hon. Friend or by his two predecessors with whom I have had correspondence, it has been made to me informally, and I believe it to be true. My point is that an earlier acceptance of Mrs. Frances's right to British citizenship would have led to Kurt Frances's obtaining a visa. Other reasons have been suggested also, but that point has never been specifically denied--indeed, officials have made it clear to me informally that they believe that it is true.

Upon his arrival in this country, Kurt Frances received a letter--it is unclear whether it is dated 1991 or 1992--bearing the reference F219061 on form APP 101A, as amended. It says:

"Your mother has applied on your behalf for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as her dependant, but you are over eighteen".

Next Section

Home Page