Lords Sitting of 15 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

BEAGLE AIRCRAFT COMPANYE
11.5 a.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on the Beagle Aircraft Company.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, activities at the Rearsby factory have now ceased, but the Receiver and Liquidator is maintaining the sub-contract work at Shore-ham, which employs about 250 of the original 500 staff at that location. Discussions are continuing between the Receiver and a number of parties who have expressed an interest in acquiring all or part of the company's assets, but it is too early to say what the final outcome will be. I am glad to say that agreement was reached with the employee representatives in March on an enhanced redundancy pay settlement, and payments have now been made to all redundant staff on this basis.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that full reply, may I ask him whether he can say what protection or consideration is being given by the Government to the design leadership of some of the projects within the old company?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: As I indicated, my Lords, discussions are continuing between the Receiver and Liquidator, on the one hand, and a number of parties, on the other, who are interested in being able to carry on some part or parts of the Beagle operations and in continuing these types of aircraft in
830
production. But as I have said, the discussions have not yet reached a point at which any further statement can be made.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this supplementary question? Does his statement mean that this very good light aircraft has some future? Does his statement also mean that the Government, who have an investment in the company, are interested in the discussions now going on?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the Government are being kept informed of the discussions by the Receiver and Liquidator, but so far no specific proposals have been put to us. In respect of the Bulldog aircraft. The Receiver is in touch with the Swedish authorities and with those companies which have expressed an interest in these contracts; and we shall consider sympathetically any proposals which are put to us. Special arrangements have also been made with the Receiver to ensure an adequate supply of spares for the R.A.F. Basset aircraft.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, would the Minister agree that if the Government could consider offers for viable parts of the Company, which I understand have been made from a number of quarters, this would in fact assist in the continuation of work?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am not quite sure what is meant by "the continuation of work". If indeed another company makes a purchase of some of the assets of the Beagle Company, the way in which that company chooses to make use of those assets and the location at which they make use of them is, of course, a matter for the company making the purchase.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, does this mean that as there are overseas companies negotiating for these assets this aircraft will be produced overseas, or will it be produced in this country?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I do not think I can add anything to what I have said already on this point.

RAIL COACHES: FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PASSENGERS
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, whether, in order to facilitate the mobility of persons who are disabled, they will urge British Rail to consider the installation of self-opening and self-closing doors in rail coaches with central corridors.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I will certainly draw the noble Lord's suggestion to the attention of the Railways Board, though it may be that there would be considerable practical difficulties.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very limited reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that these automatic doors have been fitted in hundreds of supermarket stores all over this country and that they are used in many main-line expresses in Japan, with highly successful results? Why should British Rail have lagged behind in this respect?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the automatic opening by photo electric cell, which, as the noble Lord has said, operates in some supermarkets, is likely to be extremely expensive. This is something upon which the Railways Board, which has to operate as a commercial undertaking, must reach a decision itself.
LORD SEGAL: But, my Lords, these doors can be afforded in Japan. Does it mean that we are quite unable to afford them in this country?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that British Rail give very favourable consideration to crippled people, even to the point of diverting trains to avoid the necessity for these passengers to cross bridges?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful intervention.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES
11.11 a.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement about supplementary benefits which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:
"I have today laid before the House draft Regulations containing proposals for increases in supplementary benefits. These draft Regulations require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution. Subject to this approval, the effective date will, as last year, be the first Monday in November.
"I propose that the rate for a single householder should be increased by 8s. a week and that for a married couple by 13s. a week, bringing the single rate up to £5 4s. and the married rate up to £8 10s.—plus, of course, rent. Suitable increases will be made in other rates. I will, with permission, circulate a full list of the proposals in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"These increases will more than restore the real value of the scales brought in last November.
"The current Estimates provide a figure of £485 million for supplementary benefits this year. The proposed increases, which are as usual to be met from the Consolidated Fund, will add about £70 million in a full year. Some 2,700,000 recipients will benefit."

Following are the details of the Proposed Supplementary Benefit Rates:

Present weekly rate

Proposed weekly rate

Ordinary scale

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

(a) husband and wife

…

…

…

…

7

17

0

8

10

0

(b) person living alone or single householder

…

…

…

…

4

16

0

5

4

0

(c) any other person aged

(i) not less than 21 years

…

…

…

…

3

17

0

4

3

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

…

…

3

4

0

3

10

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

…

…

2

16

0

3

1

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

…

…

2

4

0

2

8

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

…

…

2

1

0

2

4

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

13

0

1

16

0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

8

0

1

10

0

Blind scale

(a) husband and wife

(i) if one of them blind

…

…

…

…

9

2

0

9

15

0

(ii) if both of them blind

…

…

…

…

9

18

0

10

11

0

(b) any other blind person aged—

(i) not less than 21 years

…

…

…

…

6

1

0

6

9

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

…

…

4

4

0

4

10

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

…

…

3

12

0

3

17

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

…

…

2

4

0

2

8

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

…

…

2

1

0

2

4

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

13

0

1

16

0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

8

0

1

10

0

Rent addition for non-householders

…

…

…

…

11

0

12

0

Notes (i) an allowance for rent is added to the above rates.
(ii) Both the existing and the proposed rates given above exclude the 10s.long-term addition which is added to the requirements of persons over pensionable age and under pensionable age (other than the unemployed) who have received supplementary benefit for a period of two years.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement? It has always been the case that those who receive supplementary benefits have not been allowed to fall behind and that the rates have been brought up to date from time to time to keep pace with rises in the cost of living in between the increases in the rates of National Insurance benefit. May I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, is it not a measure of the rapid increase in the cost of living when only last November the rates were increased and now, just six months later, an announcement is being made about another increase? Is it not a fact, as reported in the Press yesterday, that the rise in the cost of living in the first three months of this year compared with the same period last year was 9½ per cent.? Is it not a fact therefore that the need for these increases simply emphasises the very rapid rise in the cost of living—and, of course, a rise in the cost of living that is likely to go on; so that by November the increase now being proposed will almost certainly not be adequate?
The second question is this. Can the noble Baroness tell us when it has happened
834
in the past that this very short interval has occurred between the one increase and the next? Has this ever happened before? Perhaps I may add a third question. Is it necessary to make an announcement now, so far ahead, of an increase: in November? It is very unusual, surely, for an increase in supplementary benefit, as opposed to a National Insurance rise, for an announcement to be made so far ahead.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, if I may, I will reply to the noble Lord's second question first. The interval will, of course, be 12 months; it is from last November to next November. On the last point, I understand that the Department has felt the need of a greater time span to deal with the necessary machinery; in other words, they have learned from one year to another that it is better to have a longer period of time. I do not accept the noble Lord's point that price increases are necessarily going to follow by November. What the Government are concerned to do is to make sure that the people at the lowest end of the scale are not at risk. Therefore increases are really to meet any

835
possible changes in prices. But I would remind the noble Lord that at the moment the economy is in a very healthy state.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this proposed increase will be greatly welcomed by those on fixed incomes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this increase will be welcomed, is the noble Baroness aware that, despite all the endeavours and protestations of the Government, they have not been able to hold the cost of living? Will she not therefore accept that this increase, which I understand brings the levels of rates up to the present increase in the cost of living, will be inadequate by November; or will the Government undertake and guarantee that there will be no further increase by November?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord (I could not quite gather whether he was for or against this increase) that the Government have by their record always shown that they are very concerned about this group in the community, and that if there should be any possible risk they would deal with it. I do not want to widen this discussion into an economic debate, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the picture is not quite so black as he would have us believe. Perhaps it is due to a "Friday morning" feeling.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Baroness said she did not gather whether I was for or against the increase. I thought I made it quite clear that it has always been the practice that these rates are stepped up gradually to meet the cost of living. We welcome this necessary step. All I am concerned with is to point out why the need has arisen, and the timing of the announcement.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that people on fixed incomes have no organised body to negotiate for them and that it is a magnanimous step which the Government are taking on their behalf?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Indeed, if these
836
people did organise they could rival student power. There is no doubt that this is a compassionate Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if they are as compassionate as all that, why do they not bring forward the date for making this increase, instead of making it in November?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord would then say that this was just an Election trick.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while not wishing to widen this into an economic debate, may I ask, having served in the Department, and having in the past had responsibility for doing what the noble Baroness is doing today, if she can make it clear whether these increases (the purposes of which are entirely understood and are supported by everyone) do no more than just make good the loss of purchasing power through the rise in the cost of living between the last increase and today? If not, what exactly is the difference?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think I made that point before: that the increase is to take account of any possible change, but not only that. I actually used the phrase, "more than restore the real value", and I think that that is really what we have in mind.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that these increases are to correspond with the general wage increase and the general increase in income of all the people who are capable of earning; that this is just a compensation to see that the standard of living of this lower income group of people is brought into accord with the general increase in the standard of living that the present Government have brought about?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, this is an important section of the community that we are discussing. Regarding the time factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn has referred, no one knows better than he does that there are administrative difficulties and that there has to be some delay

837
between the announcement and the time of the operation.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.

TONGA BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS BILL
11.22 a.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Use of invalid carriages on highways]:
LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Entitlement to vehicles other than invalid carriages
". Section 33 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968 shall be amended by inserting after subsection (1) the following sub0 section—
(1A) Persons disabled for any reason other than as a result of service in the armed forces of the Crown during the 1914 world war and after 2nd September, 1939, shall have the like entitlement to vehicles other than invalid carriages as persons entitled to vehicles as a result of the said service."
The noble Lord said: In putting down this Amendment I wish to raise a live issue which is being discussed by lively people outside Parliament. If this point was not discussed in another place, I think it valuable to discuss it in this Committee. I am looking for a more flexible attitude from the Government on this subject. I concede (and I back this from what I read in the Which? report of August, 1969), that the new P5 invalid
838
tricycle is a great improvement on its predecessor. It has a more powerful engine, although it is foreign; it has automatic transmission, and I agree that it suits many disabled people better than a car. I hope that this point will allay the fears, which I understand the Government have, that there will be a flood of applications if cars are to be offered all round instead of tricycles, or indeed, if the option is given of paying the extra between the cost of a tricycle and a car.
I do not wish to prejudice the position of the ex-Service disabled, all of whom now can have a car whether or not they were injured in battle; but some good things in the scientific and the social world have come out of war, and I feel that it would be a fine thing if the position that the British Legion and others have won could be shared by all. I am sure that this would not be resented by the Service disabled. I have driven some 200,000 miles in an adapted motorcar and I should not like to think of the condition in which I might be now if I had done that mileage in a three-wheel vehicle.
As I say, there is wide support and interest in this Amendment, Mr. Neil Marten, in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Segal, are very interested, as are the public and the Press, the racing driver, Mr. Graham Hill, and many others. I should like to touch on the social aspect of the Amendment because I feel that the loneliness and sometimes the helplessness of a driver in a three-wheel vehicle is all too apparent. There is a tendency for people to treat such vehicles and their drivers as being a freak on the road. Mr. Graham Hill told me that when he drove one he felt, in racing parlance, like a mobile chicane, with traffic trying to dodge round the outside of him and he unable to keep up. If one is driving a car there is the feeling that one may be of use to other people and I think that that has a strong phsychological effect. I also feel that as the family of a disabled person suffer a good deal, there is no reason why other members of the family should not make use of a car. I went into the safety aspect on an earlier occasion during the Committee stage, and I do not want to dwell on that again. I explained then that there was a basic lack of safety about a three-wheel vehicle.
I know that the vexed question, as always, is that of cost, and I want to start with a substantial credit. If this Amendment should be accepted, I believe that it would give a substantial increase in mobility to disabled people. It would help them to lead a normal life, from which it follows that there would be greater opportunities for employment. At present no less than 11 per cent. of disabled people are unemployed. The cost of this unemployment includes, of course, the loss of potential production and the consequent contribution to the national wealth; it includes unemployment payments and the loss to the Revenue of income tax on earnings. There is also the loss of the investment in a person's education; and there is the cost in respect of those who have to be kept in a home, which could easily amount to some £50 a week. All this I believe, adds up to a large sum of several hundred thousand pounds a year.
There is also the question of the overall cost of the car and the tricycle. I agree—and I congratulate the Government upon it—that in the last five years the amount spent on cars and tricycles has doubled. But the number of vehicles has risen by only 42 per cent. because rising costs have taken care of the remainder. In the last ten years 45 per cent. more has been spent on tricycles, but only 20 per cent. more on cars, so cars are not responsible for the increased costs up to now. I believe that only 224 have been issued in the last five years. That leads me on to the comparative costs per unit, or per vehicle. According to the Ministry's own figures, at present it costs £22 10s. a year more to provide a car than a tricycle. When the P5 is supplied, being a more sophisticated vehicle it will cost more, and so the gap will be narrower.
Following discussions which Mr. Graham Hill and I have had with one of our major motor manufacturers, I understand that an 1100 cc. car, doing 48,000 miles over an eight-year period, would cost £298 5s. per annum, if the full retail price without purchase tax were paid. That includes capital depreciation, fuel, servicing, maintenance, spare parts, Road Fund tax, insurance and garaging. I imagine that the Government could negotiate a considerable reduction
840
on that figure. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any comparative figures for a three-wheeler over that period. The mileage in that period would almost cover the life span of two three-wheeler vehicles. My reaction to these figures was that they were not unreasonable, and when they are set against the credits of the social and practical advantages of a motor car, I feel that there is a good case. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I certainly wish to support strongly the Amendment, and the arguments put with such expert knowledge by the noble Lord. But perhaps it will be helpful to the Committee if, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, I say a few words about the present situation and how I see it. Of course, I commit nobody except myself, but I think that I should commit myself.
It would be idle not to face the fact that we are very close to a General Election. Even if I were in the Government, I probably should not know for certain or not whether there was going to be an Election in June, but every reader of the newspapers this morning will assume, I think, that there is going to be a General Election in June or thereabouts. We are sensible people; we are anxious to help the disabled, and we have to take this possibility into our calculations. If nothing particular had been done about this Bill, it would simply have been lost, because the Report stage would have been due during the period of this hypothetical Election. I must therefore express my gratitude to the Government for helping to facilitate its passage and agreeing to give time next Wednesday afternoon. In that sense, it will not be the fault of the Government—and I am sure it will not be the fault of anybody else—if this Bill does not go from this House to another place after next Wednesday. The Government have co-operated, and one naturally assumes that such an excellent Government would co-operate—although I have no reason to say that another Government would not. But those who represent the disabled here are grateful, and we must show a spirit of co-operation in return.
I will not specify, but I feel that we should not behave and fight on as though nothing had happened. There must be some adjustment in our attitude, although

841
I am not suggesting that there should be unconditional surrender. Therefore let moderation and prudence be our watchwords, and at the same time let us continue to thresh out any points that still have to be gone into. I am not suggesting that there should be some perfunctory dismissal of the Bill, because there are a number of matters to be gone into thoroughly but I think it right to mention these points.
It may well be—and I should always hope to be connected with it; if I am spared—that there will be another Bill later on supplementing, correcting and improving this one. Nothing that I say today is intended to suggest that if any concessions are made in order to get this Bill through that will be the end of the story. This Bill is the beginning of the real national help towards the disabled. I thought it right to say how I see the matter. I am not empowered to pledge anybody else, but that is how the matter seems to me.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to ask the Government not to be daunted by the question of the extra cost involved. I feel that there is an important principle in this particular clause. If the Government would accept it in principle, and then carefully investigate each application made, I think they would earn the gratitude of many thousands of invalid persons, who would even get a psychological boost from the fact that perhaps the most deserving sufferers could be at the head of the queue where the benefits of this particular clause are involved.
LORD ALPORT: Surely this is a matter for decision between the parties concerned and the Government Department concerned, rather than for legislation. I should have thought (I shall be corrected if I am wrong), in view of what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, that even though this was not included in the legislation before the House there is no reason why the object should not be achieved as soon as possible when the Government are prepared to commit themselves to the financial expenditure involved.
LORD SANDFORD: Before the noble Baroness answers this Amendment, as one who has from the first moment with which he was concerned with this Bill,
842
before it came to us from the Commons, urged despatch, and restraint in moving further Amendments, I should like very much to support the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in what he has said. The whole Bill is now imperilled by the possibility of an early Election, and it seems quite clear to me that every Amendment moved against the better judgment of the Government imperils it still more. I have no Amendment down myself, so I can say this quite freely; but I believe that it is very true.
11.37 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): I should like to thank the noble Earl responsible for the Bill for making his position clear this morning, although I must confess that I am not entirely sure now what his position is. No-one wants unconditional surrender, but I can only add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has told the Committee that every day that passes imperils the Bill, and every Amendment moved from now on certainly imperils the Bill. I can assure the Committee that the Government will continue, as they have done so far, both in another place and in this House, to do everything possible to assist the smooth and swift passage of the Bill through to the Royal Assent. To my mind, it would be a tragedy if at this late stage, regardless of events that may be impending, we were to lose the immense amount of work that has been done in both Houses on this Bill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Baroness is concluding that part of her reply, I should like to ask her a question. Surely the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, do not mean that to move an Amendment is imperilling the Bill. I am sure that they cannot really mean that, although it is what they both said. Surely they do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has in some way imperilled the Bill by moving an Amendment. I think we must get that clear.
LORD SANDFORD: If the noble Earl will forgive me, the words that I used, and the words that I stick to, were that "every Amendment moved against the

843
better judgment of the Government will imperil the Bill".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sorry to break in again, but how can we tell what the "better judgment" of the Government is until they have expressed it? There are a number of Amendments still to be moved. Surely nobody is going to rule them out before they have even been moved. I must make that plain.
BARONESS SEROTA: My concern here is purely time, and time is passing even this morning. I will therefore address my remarks at this moment to the Amendment that is before the Committee. I do not wish, again for the sake of time, to repeat the information that I gave on the first day of the Committee stage about the general consideration which the Government are giving over the whole range of policy in relation to vehicles for the disabled. This is a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Segal, has just touched. When we discussed this earlier I made it clear that the Government were reviewing their policy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, so rightly reminded the Committee, it is not a question for legislation, but one of administration. We have all the powers we need.
The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has moved means, in effect, that he is asking the Government to agree in legislation to extend the "nominated driver" principle to National Health Service patients. At the moment, war pensioners' vehicles are provided not under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, but under Royal Warrant. War pensioners have a preference; it is a preference which all of the Committee would agree signalises public recognition of the contribution made by ex-Service personnel to the defence of their country. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, kindly congratulated the Government on doubling their expenditure on the vehicle service in the past five years. I can only say to the House, as I said on the last day that we sat in Committee when we discussed the extension of the vehicle service in this direction, that it will involve many millions of pounds, and an expenditure which we cannot now
844
properly estimate and which is at the moment beyond our resources. This is the present situation, and I can do no more than re-state it.
There can be no doubt that to offer to persons other than war pensioners exactly the same treatment as war pensioners now receive would increase the cost of the service to a major degree. Again I repeat, we do not lack the power; it is not a matter for legislation. In saying that I do not mean to suggest that every Member of your Lordships' House does not fully understand and sympathise with the feelings of the disabled people who are treated differently from those who have been incapacitated in the service of the Armed Forces of the Crown. Similar distinctions also apply in other areas of social provisions which have been introduced to signify the very special public recognition we give to people who have made their contribution to the service of their country in this way. No noble Lord would wish to diminish in any way the gratitude that we all feel to them.
I am sorry that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. I have made it clear, I hope, that it is not a matter for legislation; it is a question of resources. I also hope I have made it clear in my previous remarks that in the major review of the vehicle service that we are now undertaking we are looking at every category concerned; we are looking at the question of the possible use of cars, although cars are not suitable for all disabled persons. In view of the repercussions which I have indicated, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: May I ask the noble Baroness whether, in the review, the Government will be committed to provide for each category of disabled the vehicle which is most suitable to them?
BARONESS SEROTA: The whole purpose of the vehicle service is to provide vehicles most suited to the individual need of the disabled person. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord has in mind in asking me that question.
LORD CRAWSHAW: I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. I

845
sometimes feel that the Government are slightly overestimating the extra costs involved. Even if the 26,000-odd disabled drivers who now drive tricylcles all opted for a motor car at the extra £28 10s. 0d. a year, this would amount only to a figure of something like £800,000 a year. I feel that this would be money well spent. In view of what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said about the passage of this Bill, and of the statement that I had yesterday from Mr. Alfred Morris, who told me that he was trying to amend the Finance Bill to achieve what I want, and also realising what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about the ability to achieve the effect of this Amendment without further legislation, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Annual report on research and development work]:
11.45 a.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 28, after ("shall") insert ("have in the Department of Health and Social Security a Division for chronically sick and disabled persons and")
The noble Lord said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak not only to this Amendment but to the next one, which hangs with it, and also to the other four Amendments in my name on the Marshalled List to leave out Clauses 20 to 23. It is necessary for me to do this in presenting my arguments on these two Amendments, and it will also save your Lordships' time, which I hope will please you.
These two Amendments would make Clause 18 read like this:
"The Secretary of State shall have in the Department of Health and Social Security a division for chronically sick and disabled persons and as respects each year lay before Parliament a report on the health, welfare, education, pensions and benefits of chronically sick and disabled persons and on the progress made during that year on research and development work"—
and so on.
These two Amendments and those on Clauses 20 to 23 arise out of a point made by both my noble friend Lord Segal and myself on Second Reading. Your Lordships will see that the four
846
clauses whose deletion I am moving are outstanding in that they are the only clauses in the Bill which mention any disability by name. A number of your Lordships are interested in, or associated with, various charities that raise money to help the disabled. There are, I have been told (I cannot remember by whom) over 200 voluntary societies concerned with helping people with particular disabilities. If it were not for the voluntary societies and if everything had been left to the Government the plight of the disabled would be very bad. The voluntary societies do marvellous, devoted work, and very economically, too.
Speaking from my own experience, I would say that most voluntary societies would like Government recognition of the work that they are doing, perhaps in the form of Ministry observers on their boards and Government money to help particular projects. When the Government are willing to provide money towards a project, it is a happy event and a great achievement. It means that the charity is recognised and trusted by sober Ministry medical opinion. The Ministries have not only the best advice—or should have the best advice—but the greatest care for the money that they allot, because it is the taxpayers' money. An even greater achievement is to find that the specific disability about which one is concerned is incorporated in the Statute, thereby gaining for itself significance and enormous weight of moral influence, together with the pecuniary advantage which Parliament, in its wisdom and authority, can give.
Either Clauses 20 to 23 are intended to achieve something and will do so, or they are not and will not. If they are not then it is obviously not worth having them in the Bill; they are rather vague. If they achieve something for those with the disabilities mentioned, I for one shall be very glad. I am thinking, too, and have thought before during the Committee stage of this Bill, of all those disabilities which are not mentioned in the Bill. I am Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Institute for Research into Mental Retardation. This is a creation of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. One might describe the functions of the National Society as being that of alleviation, while the Institute for Research was

847
set up to find causation and prevention of mental handicaps. We are always looking for help and for money and we find it extremely difficult to get. I heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells on Second Reading say:
"… one cannot help being anxious about what is, perhaps, the most vulnerable of the permanently disabled who are, of course, those who are seriously mentally subnormal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 9/4/70, col. 262.]
I am bound to agree with him, and yet, in our view, among the chronically sick and disabled there is not a mention of the mentally handicapped.
I obviously do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say later on to the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Longford, No. 53, mentioning the mentally handicapped—that is to say, if my noble friend is going to move it. Although I have my name to that Amendment, it seems to me that there are dangers in having too much detail in the Bill, and that we should not be too specific, as has been recognised in drawing up the Bill. But for some reason this principle has been abandoned when it comes to Clause 23. That at once raised in my mind the question of fair shares for all. For instance, I should greatly value Government help, with the weight of Statute behind it, towards setting up a really first-class institute for mental retardation in this country, but I do not know where it would end if we all started writing our particular wants into the Bill. I think Clause 24, at the end of the Bill, is quite wide enough and strong enough to cover most circumstances.
However, since the House of Commons have passed these four clauses, and as they are already in the Bill, I am told—and I am willing to believe it—that it would be a pity to take them out. Yet if we are going to be as specific as that, it seems to me that some kind of equal opportunity should be given to other interests to make representations to obtain special facilities, Government attention, and so on. I have seen it suggested that there should be a Ministry for the disabled. I do not know whether that would ever be necessary, but there is certainly at the moment too often a question as to which Department one should make representations to. My
848
honourable friend Mr. Morris tells me that in preparing the Bill he had to deal with no fewer than 11 different Departments.
If your Lordships can hardly believe that, I would say that they are the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Department of Employment and Productivity, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, the Ministry of Power, the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office; and the Law Officers are of course by implication included as well. No wonder, therefore, that it is Mr. Morris's belief that perhaps the main reason why there has never before been a Bill of this nature is that no one has been prepared to face the slog necessary to tramp round these Departments and assemble the Bill, in the face of all this daunting Departmental diffuseness.
Besides this, the Bill will raise questions and problems for local authorities and they will certainly need information. I do not know of whom they are to ask their questions. There will be the matter—there always is, as there was in the Bill the Second Reading of which my noble friend Lady Serota moved yesterday—of keeping the less well-equipped and less willing local authorities up to scratch. I am wondering who is going to see to that. Members of Parliament will have constituency problems in connection with this Bill. Your Lordships will, I expect, have had experience of being shuffled from one Department to another in pursuit of an inquiry or trying to make representations. It can sometimes be a very long job. It is not the fault of the civil servants; each one has his job to do. But I do not think it should be necessary for someone who has a problem in connection with this Bill, or with any cause connected with the disabled, to go round to upwards of a dozen Ministries to find the answer to his question.
So I am suggesting that there should be some co-ordinatory Government centre for dealing with the problems of the disabled, to which we can all go and which will cope with not only all the matters contained in the Bill but all those matters which will be provided

849
for under Clause 24. Of course, it is not for me to tell my right honourable friend the Secretary of State his administrative business but I should have thought that some such division would greatly help him in formulating and operating the provisions of Clause 24. It would help to oil the wheels of Government and navigate corridors, provide information, give sympathetic attention to our problems and generally help to push what we are trying to do. In so far as it is possible, it would see to the fair allocation of resources to all categories of the disabled.
Finally, may I point out, in support of these two Amendments, that it has recently been thought necessary to put into the hands of one Ministry everything pertaining to the pollution of the environment; and, setting all sentimentality aside, I can hardly think that the cause of the disabled is less important. I do not expect my Amendment to be accepted, because it is probably faulty in drafting and in any event it may not be the best of several ideas towards achieving the objectives I have described. But I hope I shall receive from my noble friend the Minister an assurance that the Government are aware of the problems I have raised and will take some steps towards setting up a central co-ordinating governmental body of this kind. I beg to move.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: May I ask the noble Lord the Chairman—I am not even sure that this is in Order—whether it is assumed we are debating five or six Amendments now, or only two?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD JESSEL): Only one.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I follow up that question by asking the noble Lord the Chairman whether it would be in Order, as I imagine it would be, to reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, which in fact covered, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, suggested, about five Amendments? I imagine that, as the noble Lord in trying to help the Committee has covered all this ground, we also may cover it.
LORD SEGAL: I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware that the second
850
sponsor of the Amendment has signified his desire to speak. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, might be heard at this stage.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. They seem to me common sense, and as he has outlined a good many reasons in support of them, I will say no more.
11.58 a.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps he will forgive me for trying to speak before him. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I know, was trying to help the Committee, and probably has helped the Committee, by covering all this ground. But in fact his argument falls into two quite distinct sections held together by a fairly slender link in the argument that, if we are going to specify certain activities which need special help, then there ought to be particularly good machinery at headquarters for allocating resources. This, if I may say so, was the fairly slender connection between the two parts of his argument. I very much hope, indeed with some confidence, that he will not press his Amendments to Clauses Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23.
LORD RAGLAN: If it will put the noble Earl's mind at rest, may I say that, with the permission of the Committee, I shall not move them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then I will waste as little time as possible in replying to the arguments the noble Lord began to use, because the truth is that these provisions were hammered out very carefully in the House of Commons after much discussion. These particular kinds of disablement were given a priority as a result of all those discussions, and I think it would be the greatest mistake in the world to try to undo that work. It would certainly finish off the Bill.
May we then turn to the Amendment to Clause 18. I do not intend to take up time, because the Government must give us their guidance. There are various ways in which one could co-ordinate the treatment of the disabled. It passed through my mind that one Minister alone should not have the responsibility for that. I am not in favour of what is called a "Minister for the Disabled", but I think: the present Minister of

851
Health and the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and her successors should have a special responsibility, defined in some way, for the disabled. I certainly would not personally press the Government hard on this Amendment, but I should like to know what they wish to say about it.
BARONESS SEROTA: To save the time of the Committee, and in view of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has spoken over the range of his Amendments, perhaps it would help if I were to address myself to his two Amendments to Clause 18 and leave my noble friend Lady Phillips to speak on the others.
May I preface my remarks by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl in his view on the proposition that I know is favoured in certain quarters, that we should have a separate Minister for the disabled. To my mind the needs of the disabled are as wide as life itself. We do not wish in any way to segregate them from the rest of society. On the contrary, what we want to do above all is to enable them to live to the limits of their potential as normal members of society, and that is why my colleagues and I worked together on this Bill across the range of services that should be provided to help and support the disabled in their daily lives. That has been the approach of this Government throughout this Bill and although, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has said, it means that a large number of Departments are involved, that is equally true for all citizens. That is the way in which the Government work. I can assure the noble Earl that I certainly take my responsibilities as Minister of State for Health, which cover a considerable range of the welfare needs of the disabled, very seriously indeed, and certainly in the Department for which I speak I can say fairly that the needs of the disabled will not be overlooked and that they will always have the special attention they require.
However, when we turn to Amendment No. 44, I confess that I find it difficult to advise the Committee to accept an Amendment which would have the effect of telling the Secretary of State how to run his Department. Moreover, it would mean that the functions of the particular division could
852
be changed only by an amending Act of Parliament if change were felt to be necessary; and at this stage I do not think noble Lords would wish me to enlarge on the kind of difficulties that this Amendment would present. At the moment, the Department is divided on a functional basis and quite obviously one would see a difference in the division dealing, for example, with sickness benefits from that dealing with chiropody services, and I do not think that any noble Lord would suggest that those two things should be done together.
It is when we come to Amendment No. 45 that we are prepared to consider whether we can assist in terms of bringing together knowledge and information over the range of need. The effect of Amendment No. 45, if I may now speak to it, would be to extend the special annual report on the progress of research and development in equipment for chronically disabled persons which was carried into the Bill in another place. A particular section of the special report which has been agreed in the Bill would have to cover the whole range of the services provided for the chronically sick and disabled by the Department of Health and Social Security and also the services provided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
All aspects of the responsibilities of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are already covered in the annual report of his Department, and I would not advise the Committee to include this Amendment in the Bill because it would require a special report, standing in its own right, for the chronically sick and disabled. If we were to do that, why should we not similarly provide a report on the services for the blind, the services for unmarried mothers, the under-fives, and the elderly? Personally, I would stick to the principle of non-segregation, but what I think we could consider—and this might help my noble friend—is that when we come to present and publish the annual report we should, within the range of the Department's services, bring together the services which are provided for the chronically sick and disabled into one section of our report. This may help people to refer to developments and to watch the progress of developments over

853
the whole range from year to year. With that assurance that we will look at the position in those terms, I would ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: May I ask a question on procedure? I think I missed something that was said by the noble Lord, Raglan. Do I understand that he is not going to move the deletion of Clauses 20 to 23, and that we shall have no opportunity of discussing them?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: If I may say so, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, really covered the points that he would have made in suggesting the deletion of the clauses. Therefore, with the permission of the Committee if I now give the reply to the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that will cover some of the same points and it might assist the noble Lord, Lord Platt, if he wishes to intervene.
LORD RAGLAN: May I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that he can always speak on any matter pertaining to the clause on the Question That the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
I am most happy with the reply made by my noble friend Lady Serota. I said that it was not my job to teach my right honourable friend the Minister his administrative business. Of course I hoped for more than my noble friend gave me, but I am grateful for what I have got. I shall study what she has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.9 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH)BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 7, line 31, leave out from ("equipment") to ("and") in line 32 and insert ("that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled persons")
The noble Baroness said: If the Committee is agreeable, I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 together because they are all closely related. In moving Amendment No. 46, I am seeking to broaden the scope of the clause. I have been given to understand—and I hope I have understood correctly—that the Government are prepared to accept my Amendments. In view of this,
854
and hoping to assist the passage of the Bill, I shall be brief.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 seek to allow the inclusion of "spin off" developments in the proposed annual report; namely, the results of research and development in one field for one purpose which have been taken up and proved useful in an entirely different field. I believe that in the past the disabled have benefited as much from these byproduct developments as from aids designed specifically for the disabled. For example, the golf ball typewriter and continuous stationery have helped many disabled people to write again.
More recently, NASA research for the astronaut's space flight programme has produced various inventions which will benefit the disabled enormously. I believe that if an all-electric car is developed in the future (and if it is it will have been developed for the mass market for the able-bodied and not specifically for the disabled), many more disabled people will be able to drive it, including those who are now too disabled to drive existing cars, people like Paul Bates, who drives a converted milk float with only three fingers and thumb of one hand, and those thalidomide children with powered arms who I mentioned at an earlier stage, and who, when they outgrow their Emma trolley, will be forced to become disabled passengers.
The purpose of Amendment No. 48 is to stress the importance of doing all we can to provide maximum mobility for disabled people. I feel very strongly that every effort must be made to use technology to benefit all the disabled in our society—the blind, the accident victims and so on—and to help them to become as independent and active as possible. But particularly for the thalidomide children, when they grow up, as well as for those now too disabled to drive existing cars, I ask your Lordships to agree to these Amendments. I feel that we must ensure that this annual report includes not only information on research and development specifically aimed at helping the disabled, but also information on research and development undertaken anywhere for whatever purpose, the outcome of which might help them. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: In supporting this Amendment, may I briefly give one

855
example of a spin-off development which has been a help to disabled people. It is not only Members of your Lordships' mobile bench who have to sit for long periods in a confined position; it is also the crews of space ships. I am told that a type of cushion has been developed which is very useful to them which would be very useful to us.
BARONESS SEROTA: It seems that the Committee wishes the Government to speak on every Amendment. I can only say that the noble Baroness is quite correct in saying that the Government are perfectly happy that these Amendments go into the Bill.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I should like to thank the Minister very much for her reply.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I beg to move Amendment No. 47:
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out ("designed to") and insert ("that might").—(Baroness Darcy (de Knayth).)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, after ("the") insert ("indoor and outdoor").—(Baroness Darcy (de Knayth).)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 18, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I say a word before we leave this clause, which I think is an extremely important one. I am slightly worried by the last part which we have just amended and which will now read;
"…and in particular such equipment as might improve the indoor and outdoor mobility of such persons."
I hope that this report will not concentrate only on ways in which the mobility of the disabled can be improved. There are disabled who are virtually immobile, and for these people I think we must all feel particularly sorry. I hope that in inserting these last few words in this clause we shall not forget that the totally immobile appreciate such things as devices which automatically turn over
856
pages of books, many of which, I believe, at the moment are very unsafe. I hope that the report will cover all these aspects, and that the insertion of these last few words will not cause the report to concentrate almost exclusively on ways of making the disabled more mobile.
LORD GRAY: Am I right in understanding that the term "wellbeing", which has just been inserted by one of the Amendments will specifically cover equipment of a purely safety nature?
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Institute of hearing research]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD PLATT: I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in his proposal to delete this and certain other clauses, for the reasons that he has already given us when he was speaking to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45—namely, that for the first time this clause mentions certain types of disablement. That seems a pity. Clause 20 instructs the Medical Research Council of the need for hearing research. Having been a member of the Medical Research Council for many years, I do not think they need an instruction of this kind. Moreover, it brings in a generality. If we are going to instruct the Council on the need for research into hearing, why are we not instructing them on the need for research into a thousand other things? I think it is a bad clause, and I would not have voted in favour of it.
LORD RAGLAN: I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has said. I think it is a bad clause. I would ask the Government what they hope to obtain by this clause. It is extremely vague. Are they going to set up with it an institute for hearing research? Why cannot I, as a member of the Institute for Research into Mental Retardation, have a clause to myself? I think that the Government owe the Committee some explanation as to what this clause is intended to do.
LORD SEGAL: While I would support the noble Lords, Lord Platt and Lord Raglan, in principle in their objection to

857
the inclusion of these clauses, I feel very strongly that, as a matter of expediency and in order to get this Bill passed through with the minimum of delay, we should not seek to alter the Bill by a wholesale deletion of these clauses. I have gone very carefully through all the prolonged debates on the Bill in another place. I realise how strongly affected individuals, affected parties and organisations feel about these particular clauses, but on balance, in order to accelerate the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book, I am in favour of retaining the clauses.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: As one who as the years go on suffers increasingly from deafness, I must say that I sincerely hope Clause 20 will remain in the Bill. As the noble Lord said, there are a hundred and one matters that require research and could well justify the setting up of a special institute. Nevertheless, deafness is a very common complaint, hardness of hearing is a very common deficiency, shared by millions of people, and my own very sincere hope is that this clause will remain.
LORD PLATT: May I say something more about that? There is a great deal of active research going on at the present time into deafness, both by the National Hospital, Queen's Square, and by the Ferrens Institute, Middlesex Hospital.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: While my noble colleague says that, I am sure that as a Parliamentarian he will agree that it takes a very long time to get a Bill of this kind drafted and before Parliament. As I see it, the importance of these clauses is that they focus the attention of society on these particular people. If the clauses are deleted these people will once more be forgotten. Therefore, as a politician I attach great importance to this and I would ask the Committee to leave these clauses in.
BARONESS SEROTA: As the noble Lord, Lord Segal, quite rightly pointed out, this clause was inserted in the Bill after a great deal of discussion and debate in another place; and, leaving aside the question of the important principles which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, raised, about the selection of particular handicaps, I would advise the Committee
858
for that reason to leave it in. There is a further reason which I think the Committee would be advised to consider: namely, that this clause as at present drafted would impose on the Secretary of State the duty of collating and presenting evidence to the Medical Research Council on the need for an institution of hearing research. That is the effect of the clause.
I do not wish to delay the Committee at this stage with an account of the developments in this field. The Government fully accept the importance of research into hearing and deafness; and as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is well aware, the Medical Research Council already widely support a considerable programme and have recently upgraded one of their research teams to the status of a research unit. But both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who also, of course, has a close interest and responsibility here, feel that this clause, having been inserted in the Bill, should go forward into law. We feel that it would advance the cause of knowledge in this field, and we would advise the Committee not to delete it.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I should like briefly to ask the Committee to leave Clauses 20 and 21 in the Bill. I do so for several reasons. The first is the delay that will be involved if the clauses are taken out, and go to and fro. Secondly, as regards Clause 21, nobody knows how many blind deaf children there are. There is a register of the blind but it is not complete, and it would be a good thing to know the total number. Nor does anybody know how they are being cared for, except for a small number who are being extremely well cared for at a school of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. There may be many others, and I feel that we ought to know.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If there were any question of the Amendments to delete these clauses being pressed, I should certainly argue strongly against that course. But I understood from the noble Lord that in fact he is not proposing that. In those circumstances I hope

859
that, now that these various views have been aired, that will end the matter.
On Question, Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Special educational treatment for children suffering from autism, etc.]:
12.23 p.m.
LORD SEGAL LORD SEGAL moved Amendment No. 48A:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("early childhood psychosis") and insert ("mental retardation").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48A and ask that No. 48B standing in my name be also considered. I am not quite sure whether some apology might be called for for raising the matter at this late stage; nevertheless I feel that these two Amendments are extremely important. Their purpose is simply to widen the scope of this Bill and to make its wording more precise. I think it is most important that the words "early childhood psychosis" be dropped from this Bill and replaced by the words I have suggested. Many of us realise that as it now stands that is one of the loosely worded phrases in this Bill.
We are all agreed that autism requires special treatment in some form or another. But when does early childhood psychosis end, and when does late childhood psychosis begin? Is late childhood psychosis to be denied all forms of special treatment? When, too, does adult psychosis begin? What does psychosis itself really mean? There are many borderline cases of psychosis as distinct from the severe types. It is a term which, for the purposes of precise definition, might well in the Bill be avoided altogether. On the other hand, "mental retardation" is a very precise term, universally agreed to cover all forms of mental subnormality and mental handicap. It would include all the cases of mental illness referred to by my noble friend Lord Longford and his co-sponsors in their Amendment to Clause 24, Amendment No. 53.
It may surprise noble Lords, as it certainly surprised me, to know that this phrase "other forms of early childhood psychosis" was inserted into Clause 22 in another place on March 20 without a
860
single word of comment or criticism. Subjects like autism and dyslexia were fully discussed, but this phrase was passed over entirely. It is a bad phrase, totally inadequate and liable to all kinds of misinterpretation. I submit strongly that it should be dropped entirely in favour of the words I have suggested in my Amendment. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I recognise the great expertness of the noble Lord, Lord Segal. Not only is he a professional expert but he has done wonderful humanitarian work as Chairman of the National Society for the Mentally Handicapped. At this stage I personally should like to hear a Government speaker who is equipped with equally expert knowledge. I feel myself incapable of offering a comment of that order of expertness. So if it is convenient for the Committee and for the Minister, I think that we ought to hear what the Government spokesman has to say.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am touched that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, should think that I have expert knowledge. Certainly it is not on the same level as that of the noble Lord, Lord Segal. I speak purely from the educational angle to which this clause particularly refers. The Government appreciate the concern for the education of mentally retarded children shown by various noble Lords in the earlier stages of the debate. Clause 22 of the Bill—and this is also true of Clauses 21 and 23—focuses particular attention on a limited class of handicapped child which presents particular educational difficulties. In a very true sense, the education of all handicapped children presents particular difficulty, but the promoters of the Bill selected these classes because the difficulties of education are specific and the problems of communication between the teacher and child are grave. I do not think that the Government would contest that view.
But when we come to mentally retarded children—the phrase used by the noble Lord—we are not dealing with clearly defined minority groups but with the identified majority of all handicapped children. Of course, that makes them not a matter of less but of more concern. But because of the size of these groups it is not possible to draw special attention to them without actively distracting

861
attention from the other groups not specifically mentioned. I take the term "mentally retarded children" to refer to two main groups, one of which is the educationally subnormal, which is already the responsibility of local education authorities. The other, the mentally handicapped, will be taken over educationally by local education authorities from the hospital and the local health authorities, under the provisions of the Bill which we have just been discussing in your Lordships' House, the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
The provision of educational places for the educationally subnormal children has increased very rapidly in recent years, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has encouraged local education authorities to provide new schools for these children as a matter of priority. That policy continues to operate and steps are being taken to expand the general programme of building special schools. I do not think it could be held that the Government have neglected to do everything possible for these children, and in fact local education authorities are providing a compassionate and improving service. As for the mentally handicapped, the Government's concern, which is shared by all involved in the education of handicapped children, is shown by the steps now being taken, and legislation introduced, to see that the education of these children becomes part of the more general educational service provided for handicapped children.
In the Government's view the Amendment is unnecessary, and it would defeat the object of the promoters of the Bill to introduce this clause and the related clause. Noble Lords can be assured that very active steps have been, and will be, taken to promote the education of the children to whom this Amendment refers. Accordingly, I ask noble Lords not to accept this Amendment.
LORD RAGLAN: Could my noble friend, the Minister, tell me—I do not think she has answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Segal—the definition of "early childhood psychosis"? What does that phrase mean? Has my noble friend any information on that point?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: It is hardly fair to expect me to answer what is
862
virtually, in the way the noble Lord put it, a medical question. This particular clause relates to education, and it says that it is to be restricted to children suffering "from autism or other forms of early childhood psychosis." That is a comparatively narrow group.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I would say, with respect to the noble Baroness, that I think the Government ought to answer that question, either now or at the Report stage. I do not think that the Government, with all the expert knowledge available to them, can put themselves in the position of saying that they do not know what this phrase means. I was impressed by the noble Baronesss's argument, and if I had any share in it would not wish to press this Amendment to a Division. However, I think that at the next stage we ought to be given an answer to the question of what this particular phrase means. Admittedly I am the promoter of the Bill in this House, but it is a Bill which, I am sure, in this respect was drafted with the help of the Government.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should not like it to go on record that I said I did not know what the phrase meant. I tried to point out that, as I understood it, the noble Lord was using it medically, but in this particular connection it is being interpreted in relation to educational facilities, which is different.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I accept that. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Baroness.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to thank my noble friend for her full and sympathetic explanation. I would, if I may, demur about her remark that these two Amendments were distracting attention from the other two groups specifically mentioned; it is quite the contrary. They were directed simply at the phrase "early childhood psychosis", while fully admitting the need for special education for children suffering from autism, dyslexia, and other conditions actually mentioned in the Bill. There is no question of in any sense diverting attention from the needs of these other groups. The whole purpose of these Amendments was to state that I am not particularly happy at the loose wording of this phrase "early childhood psychosis".

863
Although, naturally enough, I do not wish to press this Amendment at this stage, I would earnestly ask that reconsideration be given to the further possibility of rephrasing these three words in a more suitable form.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I think my noble friend feels that there may be some purists in the medical profession, and others, who will find it difficult to define precisely what this phrase means. He feels that if the net is cast more widely and if we talk about "mental retardation" no group of children will get overlooked. I understood from my noble friend Lady Phillips that there would be no possibility of this, and that these particular children would have the most specialised treatment. Therefore I am inclined to be persuaded by my noble friend that that is so.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but, as I understand it, the phrase "mentally retarded children" is not a precise definition either.
LORD SEGAL: If I may allowed to say so, it is much more precisely worded than "childhood psychosis". At the same time, in withdrawing this Amendment I feel I ought to pay some acknowledgment to the noble Baroness's Department for the sympathy, the consideration and the broadminded approach they have made to these problems, and express the hopes that we rest in the future progress of her Department in dealing with these very difficult matters. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.36 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 38, after ("education") insert ("by trained staff")
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in a spirit of inquiry. I just wish to be reassured, on behalf of the other noble Lords who have put their names to this Amendment, that the words I seek to have introduced into this clause are in fact unnecessary. We have already heard about the children who are dealt with under this clause, and it is very important that children in these unusual categories should have staff to deal with
864
them who are trained and capable of dealing with them. I hope I can be told that my Amendment is unnecessary.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: If I take the noble Lord's point, he in fact wants some information. The present position is that regular teachers at special schools have to be qualified teachers, either having undertaken a course of teacher training or possessing some other approved qualification. The children therefore will be in the hands of trained teachers, many of whom, in the course of their training, have taken classes or options in special education. If the noble Lord has in mind some further qualifications for teaching autistic children, as is the case now in teaching the deaf or blind, there are several reasons why, at the moment, this would not be a desirable development. In the first place, there is no consensus of informed opinion on the educational methods and techniques which are likely to be most helpful to these children, and it would not be possible therefore to devise courses of training which could gain general acceptance. In this respect, the problems of educating autistic children are not at all parallel to those of educating the deaf or the blind.
But apart from the immediate situation, we should be unwilling to approve any development which would lead to a fragmentation of special education, and teachers being divided up into small blocks, each with a special or rather narrowly defined skill and interest. It is particularly true as regards the education of autistic children who tend, by the very nature of their disability, to be cut off from other children, and even perhaps from their own parents, that it would not be right to impose by legislation similar isolation from their fellows and the teachers responsible for the education of these children. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the point that the teachers who at the moment handle these children are qualified teachers.
LORD O'HAGAN: I thank the noble Baroness for that extremely thorough explanation of the situation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 39, at end insert—("( ) In the application of this section to Scotland for any

865
reference to a local education authority there shall be substituted a reference to an education authority within the meaning of section 145 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes. This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the application of the clause to Scotland.
The term "education authority" is the term used in the Education (Scotland) Act for what is known under the English Education Act as "a local education authority". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Special educational treatment for children suffering from chronic dyslexia]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: This is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, at end insert—("( ) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to a local education authority there shall be substituted a reference to an education authority within the meaning of section 145 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962".).—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have one very small point on this clause. My attention has been called to it by at least one very eminent person and it is my duty to raise it. Although I have not given notice of the question, perhaps the noble Baroness will look into it between now and Report stage. If one looks at Clause 23, one sees that at the side of the page there is a reference to "chronic dyslexia", but in the text of the clause itself there is a reference to "acute dyslexia." May I ask the noble Baroness to try to straighten that out one way or the other before the next stage?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, I shall be glad to do that.
LORD SEGAL: I cannot help feeling that the words at the side of this clause are a misprint, and that what was originally intended was acute dyslexia and not chronic dyslexia. It is such a difficult
866
condition, requiring such prolonged treatment, that it would hardly be practicable to retain the term "chronic dyslexia".
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I take the point. This Bill is certainly not described as the Acutely Sick and Disabled Persons Bill.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Provision of further education provision for disabled
". It shall be the duty of every local authority to make such further education provision for the disabled as will assist them in obtaining employment."
The noble Lord said: It may be helpful if, in rising to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Elliot and myself, I explain to the Committee what is the present position regarding the further education of the disabled. It is governed by Section 47 of the Education Act 1944, and Ministry of Education Circular No. 312 of September 11, 1956. These make it clear that local authorities have permissive or discretionary powers to provide further education for disabled people by means other than education at county colleges, as appear to be expedient in meeting the needs of their area. The circular goes on to say that the main responsibility of local education authorities towards patients in hospitals is to secure the provision of courses of definite educational value for those who are able to profit by them. It then deals with the types of provision—that is to say, correspondence courses, informal lectures, discussion groups of more formal classes, and the supply of textbooks to supplement the resources of hospitals and libraries, and the attendance of walking cases at nearby technical colleges or schools of art. It deals at some length with fees and financial arrangements. It deals with disablement cases in Her Majesty's Forces.
The circular also refers to certain voluntary bodies, notably the British Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled—and here I must declare a personal interest. It states that they have recently been active in this field of educational provision. For example, the preparatory training bureau of the British

867
Council for Rehabilitation ascertains the educational needs of the patients in hospitals and sanatoria, and in return for the payment by a local education authority of the cost of the facilities provided, and a percentage surcharge for administrative expenses, arranges suitable courses of study.
A number of local education authorities, including London, make use of this service, and when they do so any reasonable expenditure incurred is recognised for the purpose of grant. To give an example of what I mean, a man who is no longer capable of being employed as, say, a bricklayer can still be trained for an alternative profession, such as an accountant, and thus continue to contribute to society instead of being a drain and a disappointment to himself. This proposed new clause seeks to make such provision mandatory upon local authorities. As we know, some local authorities are good, but some are less good. I should like to express the hope that when the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, replies she will not have to tell the Committee that financial objections are overriding here. But if she does have to do so, that will go some way to prove that the present system of permissive powers is not working entirely satisfactorily. These people are entitled to every assistance in obtaining employment that we can give them. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very glad that the noble Lord has moved this Amendment. I know that it is one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, attaches a great deal of importance, but she is unable to be with us to-day. If I had to make any general criticism of this Bill, for which I have a very honourable responsibility here, it would be that it does not pay as much attention to employment as, ideally, one would have wished. So I hope that in a future Bill employment will be developed more fully than has been possible here. For that reason, in particular, I express warm support for what the noble Lord has said.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Sadly, of course, I have to use the argument which the noble Lord suggested I might well have to use. I am sorry, but if the provision of these courses were made mandatory on local education authorities,
868
and they had the additional duty of providing them, it would involve additional cost for which provision has not been made in the Financial Resolution attached to the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will draw some comfort from the fact that his very reasoned case will be on record, and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity are very concerned about this aspect. So his point will, to some degree at any rate, have been met.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. Since I am most anxious that nothing should be done to jeopardise the smooth passage of this Bill into law, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Power to define certain expressions]:
12.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 11, at beginning insert—
("( ) In this Act the expressions "chronic illness" and "disability" include chronic mental disability and the expressions "chronically sick" and "disabled" have a corresponding meaning.")
The noble Earl said: To many of us—perhaps more than will speak to it to-day—both inside and outside this House, this Amendment is of great importance. If it is accepted, it will make plain that the mentally handicapped in particular, and certain other groups, are well and truly covered by this Bill. On Second Reading, in reply to a question of mine, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said:
"The noble Earl asked me for a clarification of the position under the Bill of people suffering from mental illness or handicap. I can certainly assure him that they are covered by every clause where a problem involving mental handicap could arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/4/70, col. 260.]
She mentioned Clauses 1 and 2; and, naturally, I accept completely her expert answer.
But I am saying that it is extraordinarily difficult for anybody, for any mother or father of a mentally handicapped person, and for the ordinary

869
Member of the House of Lords, to discover exactly how this comes about. If you start at the end at the definition clause, you have to work back to the first clause of this Bill. Then you have to work over to the 1948 Act. So it is relatively plain sailing, because at least you are referred all the way by a signpost. But at that point there is a break and there is no clue on the face of it, to the Act—which is in fact the Act of 1959—that provides this coverage. So much is that so that I can say, without disclosing any conversations I have had with officials, that in the answer given by the noble Baroness on Second Reading there was no reference to the Act of 1959; and I know that she is very faithful in supplying us with any information open to her. So it is not at all an easy matter to find the reason why that answer was given.
We are not trying here to extend the scope of the Bill. We are trying to make sure that those who are covered, or who are related to those who are covered, know their rights under the Bill. The main purpose is to make sure that people take advantage of what it is intended they should be offered under the Bill. What is also not unimportant is the whole question of giving encouragement to the mentally handicapped, and I am sure that we all share that purpose. I know that the noble Baroness will at least be able to say that she takes our point seriously, but I wonder whether she can give us any encouragement. I beg to move.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to support very strongly the plea made by my noble friend Lord Longford. Although we had the assurances of the noble Baroness during the Second Reading, I think the subject is of such importance, and covers such a numerous and significant section of our community, that it is not enough that these words should be understood by implication. I feel that a strong case can be made for their actual insertion into the Bill, and I do not see how the Government can put forward any possible explanation why this Amendment should not be accepted.
BARONESS SEROTA: I know that this particular matter has concerned the noble Earl responsible for the Bill for some time. We discussed it on Second Reading, when I gave a general assurance
870
which I can confirm to the Committee; we have also corresponded about it, and he has also discussed it with officials. Nevertheless, such is his concern that he still feels the need to move this Amendment to-day. If it were carried into the Bill it would mean that we should be creating a number of problems about which I should like to tell the Committee.
The Amendment, which apparently, as I am advised, is intended to appear as subsection (1) so that the existing Clause 24 would be subsection (2) does no more than interpret the terms used in the clause to ensure that the mentally disordered are covered. I submit that this is unnecessary in relation to Clauses 1, 2 and 15, since all these refer back to Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 which, by section 8(2) of the Mental Health Act 1959, must all in fact include mentally disordered. It is our view that it is unnecessary, and indeed inappropriate to Clause 14, which is comprehensive of all groups, subject to an Amendment which we considered at an earlier stage of the Committee but which was not carried into the Bill. We do not think it would be particularly applicable, for example, to those clauses relating to access or to vehicles, or to research and development of equipment. It would, as I said at the outset, create certain technical problems of consolidation and, above all, it would result in requiring the Secretary of State, when he makes regulations, to include mental handicap whether or not it was particularly applicable.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I ask a question at this point? It could be confined to the necessary clauses, could it not?
BARONESS SEROTA: That is not the effect of the particular Amendment which my noble friend has put down. This is what I am trying to explain. I was about to say that I share with the noble Earl, and with the noble Lord, Lord Segal, their concern about the needs of the mentally handicapped. Indeed, as I pointed out at Second Reading, both my right honourable friend and I have in recent months done our best to focus public attention on their needs and also to improve the standard of services provided for them. I can certainly give the noble Earl this assurance, which I hope he will accept. Rather than carry this particular Amendment, which is full of

871
technical difficulties into the Bill, I will undertake to see that in the circular that we send out following the passage of the Bill (which I hope will very soon become a Statute) we will make clear what is intended here, where the needs of the mentally handicapped are covered and where they should be covered in future.
I hope that, with that assurance, which I give without reservation, the noble Earl will feel able to agree to withdraw the Amendment, which would cause all sorts of technical problems. I am no expert on how to draft legislation; none of us, including the mothers of our mentally handicapped children, finds it easy to understand legislation. This point I accept. It is really for the Secretary of State, when sending out circulars after the Bill has been passed, to make clear what are the intentions of the legislation. I can assure the noble Earl that we do not intend in any way to overlook the needs of the mentally handicapped.
LORD AIREDALE: I would point out that anyone can go to the Stationery Office and buy a copy of an Act of Parliament, but one cannot buy there a copy of the Ministry circular, which is addressed only to certain bodies and individuals.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I appreciate the tone of the reply of the noble Baroness. I am sure that she and her officials have worked hard to see if they can do something to meet this. I still find their position unreasonable; but in this world one often finds unreasonable things happening. I must ask now whether the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will agree with me (the other sponsors are not in their place) if I do not press this Amendment further this morning. The noble Lord nods his head. I feel sure from what the noble Baroness has said that not only in the circular but in any other publicity, this will be brought up. I take that for granted—the noble Baroness again nods her head. I reserve the position that may occur when another Bill comes forward; for this is certainly something that I hope to see altered on another occasion. For the moment I shall be content with half a
872
loaf. I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported, with Amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

National Health Service Contributions Act,

Proceedings Against Estates Act,

Guyana Republic Act,

General Rate Act,

Roads (Scotland) Act,

New Forest Act,

Tonga Act,

Road Traffic (Disqualification) Act,

Regent, Royal and Carlton Terrace Gardens, Edinburgh Order Confirmation Act,

Royal Bank of Scotland Order Confirmation Act,

Basingstoke Corporation Act,

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act,

Warwickshire County Council Act,

Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Act,

Doncaster Corporation Act,

Newport Corporation Act,

Huddersfield Corporation Act,

Bolton Corporation Act,

Hampshire County Council Act,

Havering Corporation Act,

Leicestershire County Council Act,

Swansea Corporation Act,

Barclays Bank D.C.O. Act,

Wallasey Corporation Act,

Flintshire County Council Act.

FILMS BILL
12.58 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of Lords Amendments of the Films Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The reference is to Bill (64) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Applicant for registration of film to give certain statutory undertaking
". Section 9 of the Films Act 1960 shall be amended by adding at the end the words:—
' (8) The applicant for the registration of a film shall at the same time as he makes an application under this section furnish to the Board of Trade a statutory undertaking to the effect that he has either given or offered or offered to sell at cost price to the National Film Archive of the British Film Institute a positive print of the film.'"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment raises questions which are considered irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. Noble Lords will have read the debate which took place in another place and will have noted that there was general agreement to the principle underlying the Amendment moved in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. However, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment, for two main reasons. First, this Bill, which deals with the support which the Government give to the commercial side of the films industry, is not the proper place for measures dealing with the deposit of films in the Archive. In addition, there are defects in the Amendment itself which render it unworkable. These matters were very fully debated in another place, and I will not weary the House by going into the details now.
874
Secondly, acceptance of the Amendment would involve extra demands on public funds, which the Government cannot contemplate at the present time. Assurances have been given in another place—and I should like to repeat them now—that positive action is being taken by the right honourable lady the Minister of State for the Arts to explore further the practical issues, with particular reference to the possibility that costs should be shared by the film industry, the television industry and the British Film Institute. Having received these assurances, may I ask the House to accept my Motion? I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, with which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should have thought that the original mover of this Amendment might have been here to give his thanks to the noble Baroness, but as he is not, on behalf of the whole House I should like to thank her for the statement she has made and the consideration that has been given to this matter. I think that at any rate the spirit of what we were trying to do has been achieved: and with that I would not demur from the Commons decision in this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1970
1.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Order 1970, laid before the House on May 4, be approved. The sole effect of this Order is to apply the legal aid provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 to the Lands Tribunal, at an estimated cost of £150,000 a year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly be laying a similar Order applying legal aid to the Scottish Land Court and to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, at an estimated cost of £10,000 to £15,000 a year.

875
While I hope that this Order will be welcomed in the House, it is only the first of a number of steps in this field which the Government are about to take; and as I have, for as long as I can remember, had a strong personal concern in this particular subject, I should be grateful if the House would allow me a few moments to remind your Lordships of the provision which we make for poor people.
My Lords, it has always seemed to me that it is absolutely useless to go on and on passing Acts of Parliament giving poor people legal rights if they cannot afford to enforce or defend them. For most of such people, they may as well throw their legal rights in the wastepaper basket, for all the good they do them. There was of course a time when our only provision was an action in formâ pauperis, and while there were not many such actions there have been one or two outstanding legal cases which have come up for decision in your Lordships' House in an action in formâ pauperis. But to qualify for this the pauper had to take an oath that if he was sold up to-morrow he would be found not to be worth more than £5 in the world. That was subsequently extended to £25, but never, I think, beyond that. By the time the last war broke out, we had got only as far as what is called a "poor person's action". "Pauper" was not thought a very nice word; so such actions were called poor persons' actions, and to qualify for them you had to have an income of no more than £2 a week—this was in 1939—or, in exceptional cases, £4 a week, and capital (which included your furniture) worth not more than £50 or, in exceptional circumstances, £100. If you so qualified, you then had your action done for nothing; otherwise, you got no help at all.
I say "done for nothing", but these actions were done by barristers and solicitors, and it was not only a case of their doing it for nothing: if a young member of the Bar—possibly himself having a good deal of difficulty in making both ends meet—had a two-day poor person's case at, say, Derby Assizes, he had to pay his own train fare and his own hotel bill. But, contrary to what may be thought in some quarters, I think
876
it is fair to say that lawyers in this country have always done their best to help poor litigants. In addition to that form of legal aid, there were in London and in a very few large provincial towns "poor man's lawyers", about half of whom were provided by the political Parties and the other half by Church and charitable bodies. One went along there in the evenings to give legal advice—free, of course.
When the war broke out, there simply were not the lawyers to do the cases, and I remember calling a conference about this. I do not know why I did it, because I was only an ordinary junior barrister; but, as I say, I have always felt a very special concern in this field. I called a conference of representatives of all the poor man's lawyers' associations to see what was to be done and whether we could not devise some much better scheme than this extraordinary scheme under which whether you got £1 a week more or less was the dividing line between whether you got an action done for nothing or whether you got no help at all. But there were so many different views that no conclusion came out of that.
Then I went off myself; and I remember that I was just leaving my Chambers for the last time and had in fact got to the door when I remembered something. I went back, and I sat down and wrote a long letter to the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, begging him to do something about legal aid and advice. While I was away, he appointed the Rushcliffe Committee. Now some Committees, as we know, are good, some are bad, some are indifferent. But the Rushcliffe Committee's Report was, of course, a magnificent Report. The Committee recommended sweeping away the existing system altogether and replacing it with a system under which, within certain income limits of course, you could apply for legal aid; your income would be assessed by what was then the National Assistance Board (now the Supplementary Benefits Commission) to see whether you fell within the scheme; and, if so, what your contribution was to be—because everybody had to pay what he could afford to pay, and it could be paid by instalments. The State would make up the rest, although, of course, if the action was won the costs would in fact be paid by the other side.

877
Then there were committees of barristers and solicitors, working voluntarily, who would decide whether a man had a reasonable case: and it is some indication of the care which they took of the taxpayers' money that in actions brought under this procedure in the Queen's Bench Division, mainly for damages for injuries either on the road or in factories, their success rate has always been about 85 per cent.—a much higher rate than any solicitor could claim. My Lords, this procedure was to apply in the High Court, in the county court, in domestic proceedings before the magistrates' courts and in every tribunal before which there was a right of legal representation. Then at all the local legal aid offices of the Law Society there were to be salaried solicitors giving people legal advice for what they could afford, from half-a-crown, in the case of old-age pensioners, upwards.
The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 provided for all this, and when it received the Royal Assent on July 31, 1949, I thought what a splendid Government this was. They had had both the wisdom and the courage to give independence to India, Burma and Ceylon; they had created the National Health Service; and now never again would anybody be deprived of legal advice or of the means to enforce their rights. That was on July 31. Then came September 18—devaluation and the economic measures which had to follow from that; and the Lord Chancellor was told, "Of course, you cannot actually put this into force now".
My Lords, in the following year he was allowed to put it into force so far as the High Court was concerned. We then had to worry Conservative Governments for ten years before it was applied to the county courts, and another four years before it was applied to domestic proceedings in magistrates' courts. It has never been applied to any tribunal; and the salaried solicitors never existed. Instead, so far as advice is concerned, we had what I might call a mini-advice service which anybody who knows anything about it has agreed for some years now is wholly inadequate to the need for it.
I have naturally been concerned with the position because, in addition to all that, the basic figures both of the mini-advice
878
scheme and of the Legal Aid Scheme itself have not been up-rated for years to allow for the fall in the value of money. Fortunately there is in the Legal Aid and Advice Act provision for a Statutory Advisory Committee, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is the distinguished Chairman, and I am immensely indebted, as all my predecessors have been, to the Advice Committee for all the care and trouble they have taken. There is an Annual Report by the Law Society, which is generally responsible for the administration of legal aid and advice, and when that Report is made the Advisor)' Committee also report upon it.
Over two years ago I said to the Advisory Committee, "There is no money available at the moment, but we are getting the economy right; and when we can afford it, will you look at all the deficiencies in the system? Do you think it ought to be applied to tribunals; and, if so, which tribunals? Will you kindly make yourself familiar with what all the different tribunals do, and with the need, or otherwise, for legal representation? Will you consult the Council on Tribunals, and will you consider the basic figures and the need to up-rate them, and whether we should not have a proper scheme for legal advice?" The inadequacies of what I have called the mini-advice scheme have been commented on by Conservative lawyers in a pamphlet called Rough Justice, and by the Society of Labour Lawyers, in a pamphlet called, Justice for all. The Law Society also has been working to try to devise a better system.
My Lords, the Advisory Committee have taken a great deal of trouble to look at all the tribunals to see whether any of them, and if so which, were tribunals before which the Committee thought there ought to be legal aid; and they have said that there is in their view, a paramount need for legal aid before the Lands Tribunal. They say in their Report:
"One tribunal, the Lands Tribunal, is far more akin to an ordinary court of law than it is to other tribunals. It has various functions in connection with the acquisition of land, compulsory purchase, discharge of restrictive covenants, appeals from valuation courts and, recently conferred, functions under the Land Commission Act and the Leasehold Reform Act."

879
They point out that the Lands Tribunal is one tribunal from which appeal goes straight to the Court of Appeal, and they say:
"Many, and perhaps all, its functions might equally be performed by the Chancery Division or the county court. Had that been the case, legal aid would already have been available in proceedings before it. All those whom we consulted agreed on the desirability of making legal aid available in proceedings before the Lands Tribunal and we accept their view."
The Committee also point out that the Lands Tribunal does not permit non-lawyers to appear before them as advocates but only as expert witnesses. The steps, accordingly, which the Government are taking are, first, to lay this Order to apply legal aid to the Lands Tribunal; and, as I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will do the same for Scotland.
Then the Advisory Committee have recommended that with regard to what I have called the mini-advice scheme the basic figures ought to be up-rated, at a cost in England and Wales of £300,000 a year, and of some £25,000 for Scotland. Thirdly, the basic legal aid figures have not been up-rated for ten years. There are of course two basic figures. There is an income beyond which the Act does not apply at all; that is, where there is an income, after making certain allowances and deductions of £700 a year. There is also a bottom limit, because although it is intended that everybody should pay what he can, it has of course always been recognised that the very poor obviously cannot contribute at all; and the figure there is £250 a year—£5 a week. That means virtually, I suppose, people on supplementary benefits.
The result of not up-rating the figures has been, as to the top limit, that every year there have been people who could have got legal aid last year but cannot now do so; and at the bottom end, while no one has been deprived of legal aid, it has meant calling on people for contributions when, obviously, they cannot afford to make them. So the second thing the Government intend to do is to up-rate those figures to date to restore the previous figures—in effect to allow for the fall in the value of money; and this will cost £1,126,000 a year in England and about £100,000 in Scotland.
880
The first thing that I mentioned, apart from the Lands Tribunal—namely, up rating the basic figures for the mini-advice scheme—can be done, and will be done, by the Negative Resolution procedure; the Order will be made and will be law unless anyone objects to it. To up-rate the legal aid figures for actions means another Affirmative Order and I hope to be able to lay that in the course of next week.
There remains the much better system of legal advice for the future which the Advisory Committee have recommended, which is known in the profession as "the £25 scheme". It is based, I think, on all the different proposals which different people have made, but under it anyone within the financial limit will be able to walk into a solicitor's office and, in effect, get £25 worth of work from him without more ado. But for that legislation will be necessary, and I am afraid that no time can be found for it in this Session. I have, as I have made plain, been concerned throughout my Chancellorship that we have not been able to deal with this problem before, and I am very glad that at long last, both in relation to legal aid and to legal advice, we have been able to do it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1970, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
1.18 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for explaining what it has been possible to do so far as legal advice is concerned and in connection with the Committee of which I am Chairman. I should like here to pay tribute to the very hard working and extremely expert members of my Committee and our general secretary, Mr. Thesiger; we have had quite a hard year's work. One must be thankful for small mercies, and we are glad that the suggestion we made about representation in front of the Lands Tribunal will go through. We went through all the tribunals in existence. Many of them had claims, but we felt that the Lands Tribunal was the one which was most difficult for the ordinary layman to approach and understand. I wish that the great brain of our Lord Chancellor could be directed towards the clarification of laws

881
for the ordinary human being. We know that the Jaw is sometimes considered "an ass", but it is also very incomprehensible, and it makes the case of the ordinary person who tries to understand the law extremely difficult.
We are glad to see that the financial limits have been raised. They have fallen very far behind. I must not anticipate our Report for this year, which I think will be in the hands of the printers shortly and in which we make certain recommendations which we hope will be helpful in that respect. What we are most disappointed about at present is that the £25 scheme has not been brought into effect. We think that that would have a very wide result on the whole situation. It would enable people to come and get advice early, which might in itself be an economy, it would help lawyers to establish new centres in what are at present desert places, and I think that in genera] it would be a tremendous help to the whole legal system. Perhaps in the next twelve months, if the economy allows, whichever Government may be in charge, this recommendation of ours will take first priority. We have always in mind that civil legal aid seems to lag rather behind criminal legal aid in the way of financial assistance. In our year's Report, which will be coming out shortly, we have divided the two sides, and I hope the public will notice the difference. May I thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for the kind words he said about our Committee. We look forward to another year's hard work.
1.21 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, as Chairman of the Council of Tribunals I should like to say how much the Council welcomes this extension of legal aid. We have always felt that we should welcome any measure that was likely to be of assistance to applicants and appellants. In the Council's Annual Report for 1967 we stressed the need for both experiment and research in the field of assistance relating to tribunals, and I should like to pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee and to the Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet. I should like her to know how much the representatives of the Council enjoyed the discussion that they were able to have with members of her Committee. Anyone who knows the
882
noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has heard him speak on these matters, or has been privileged to hear him to-day, knows how closely these matters lie to his heart. We realise that one major difficulty is the problem of finance. Equally, every one of us realises that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not delay when it is possible to take any action. To-day is an example of this, and we should like to express our appreciation to him for what he has done and to say that we hope he will for a long time continue as Lord Chancellor.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that a lengthy intervention at this hour will be very unpopular, but I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a few words. I think I am the only person present in the Chamber who was very actively concerned with the first Act in 1949, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has referred. I was at that time in a very interesting, if rather hard-worked, position of being an aide-de-camp to the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt. He was much concerned with this scheme, and we all were disappointed when the economic situation prevented its being put into operation in the way in which Parliament had intended.
We had had a song in our hearts, and the noble and learned Lord has described how enthusiastic he felt about the position. I can well imagine, as the noble Baroness who has just resumed her seat has said, with what feeling the noble and learned Lord has moved this Motion to-day. I have known him for a very long time, long before the war, when this was an ideal which we had and which then seemed a long way off. It is splendid that the realisation has come. I know how much he has been concerned with this, from right back in the early 'thirties—and even possibly earlier. Therefore, I should like to congratulate him on making such substantial progress so near to the end of this Parliament. He has held out to us a promise of even more substantial progress in the future.
I do not want to say anything about the advice side of this matter, but I should like to say a word or two about bringing in the Tribunals. From many points of view, the most pressing side of the financial difficulties which arose was that legal

883
aid before tribunals was cut out. This is just a start. I should not have thought that the Land Tribunal was the most important, but no doubt the matter has been gone into, and I am quite ready to accept that it is. There is no question at all that many people are much concerned with the administrative edicts which are put out, and which affect very large areas of the less educated and poorer sections of the population.
I have recently had the opportunity of reading a lecture given by one of the leading constitutional lawyers of the Commonwealth of Australia, who has been spending a year over here, and has been making a special study of administrative tribunals—that is, the inquiry courts which are held by different Ministries into many problems. He was quite appalled at the amount of injustice which he saw done because the people who were brought before these tribunals were so tongue-tied and nervous that they were not able to open their mouths. It was a very moving lecture. When I read it I saw that this Motion was on the Order Paper, and I thought that my friend in Canberra would be very pleased, as I am quite sure that he will.
This will be the "opening round" in making legal assistance before these inquiry tribunals available to a very much larger number of unfortunate people. From many points of view this is more important than the arrangements which exist for giving legal aid in the ordinary courts. In some of the cases that I have seen, sitting as a chairman of quarter sessions for many years, I should have dispensed with some of the legal aid which was given to obvious scoundrels, if that money could have been better spent on people who had real rights, which were adjudicated upon as the result of inquiries held by various Ministries. I am quite sure that this is a red-letter day in the history of legal aid, and I will conclude my remarks by again congratulating the noble and learned Lord on having managed to bring this Regulation before us during the present Parliament.
12.28 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall intervene for only a moment for the purpose of expressing to the noble and
884
learned Lord on the Woolsack my own appreciation of the lucid a4nd interesting account which he has given us of the growth of legal aid from the days of the actions in formâ pauperis, which I recall very well, through the poor person's action to legal aid, as it is under the present arrangement. I am sure we shall all welcome the extensions to the scheme which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is proposing to carry out.
I was very glad that he paid a handsome tribute to Lord Rushcliffe, who was one of my predecessors as Chairman of the National Assistance Board. In that capacity I saw something of his administrative ability, and he was a great administrator; a man who was always prepared to accept a point of view which was novel, and to try new fields. Looking back over the years, one has seen legal aid grow from nothing into something. There are one or two names which stand out in my recollection. Mr. D. N. Pritt will be recalled very well by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He was a man who in the days when there was no legal aid in the county courts ran an organisation called the Bentham Society, of whose committee I was an original member. It was run entirely by Mr. Pritt, and I think largely paid for by him. It managed, at least in London, to provide a service which the official legal aid service was not able to provide. I once more thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the interest that he takes in this subject and for the lucid and interesting account that he gave to us this morning.
1.31 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who unfortunately is unable to be present in your Lordships' House to-day, I should first like to refer to this short Order itself. The Lands Tribunal has earned for itself a very proper reputation as a tribunal which is as near as may be a court of law: the extension of legal aid to parties who appear before it seems to us on these Benches due recognition of that fact. But this Order also recognises the present position where the Lands Tribunal has an important, if specialised, jurisdiction which can affect any citizen in England and Wales. Rates, compensation (such

885
as for compulsory purchase) leasehold enfranchisement and betterment levy are all matters which can raise difficult questions of law, and it is right that no one should have his rights prejudiced for lack of proper representation. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about the position of a surveyor who is called as an expert witness. We believe that this could be done under the legal aid scheme. It is all very well to have legal representation, but professional evidence is usually essential for the proper presentation of a case before the Tribunal, and this aspect of the matter is not of great significance to the successful operation of this extension of legal aid.
On the more general matter to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, I would join in welcoming his statement. He has held out a promise of further measures to come, but in the meantime we should entirely approve of what he has said. It would, however, probably be more appropriate for me not to enter into the details of this matter but to leave one of my noble friends to discuss the scope and application of legal aid on a much wider scale as and when the opportunity promised by the Lord Chancellor arises.
1.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. Before I complete it, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, that if a person gets legal aid, and wants the services of a surveyor, he will be treated as an expert witness and will therefore be paid out of the legal aid funds. I share Lady Emmet's disappointment that we cannot start the £25 scheme in this Session. The reason is that it will require legislation, and I am afraid that it simply cannot be done this Session. I omitted to say that the new scheme, which will altogether take the place of the mini-advice scheme, will cost, in England and Wales,£1½million in the first year, rising to £2,300,000 in four years. The quantum of those amounts is really the measure of our present position.
I am grateful for what my noble friend Lady Burton has said. I am sure that we are right in at least applying legal
886
aid to proceedings before the Lands Tribunal, who, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, said, deal with complex matters—value and rating. We now have two laws for rating, one for the rich and one for the poor: those who can go to the Lands Tribunal and those who cannot. And your Lordships will remember recent legislation on leasehold enfranchisement. The sort of person that we had mainly in mind was the man who has a small house in a valley in Wales which has been occupied, perhaps, by his family for four generations, and he is just coming to the end of a ninety-nine-years lease at a low ground rent. I am told that in that part of the country the people whom we meant to benefit have not benefited as much as we should wish, because they are more or less bound to pay whatever sum the landlord demands as they cannot afford to go to the Lands Tribunal, which is the Tribunal appointed to deal with those disputes. I know that this extension of legal aid will give satisfaction in that part of the country.
I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I deal mainly with civil legal aid, and am only concerned with criminal legal aid in the magistrates' courts. Like the noble Lord, I sometimes feel that we do too much in the field of criminal legal aid, and that the aid could be better employed in extending civil legal aid. I should also like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in the tribute that he paid to Mr. Pritt. I was myself an old member of the Bentham Society; I know how much Mr. Pritt did in that field.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I am only sorry that in the economic situation we could not deal with this matter before, but I had thought that a time would come. I am doubly indebted to the Advisory Committee who have done what may sound simple, though it has meant a great deal of work because a lot of complicated detail is involved. I hope next week to be able to lay two Orders altering the basic figures, and if we are returned, and the next Session has not by then started, we shall I hope be able to tackle the £25 scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY AIR (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
  RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.