Lords Sitting of 26 May 1971

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

LORD WIDGERY
Sir John Passmore Widgery, Knight, O.B.E., T.D., Lord Chief Justice of England, having been created Baron Widgery, of South Molton in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Parker of Waddington and the Lord Tangley.
The Lord Casey—Took the Oath.

SCHOOL MEALS: EFFECT OF INCREASED CHARGES
2.49 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 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 state the reduction in the number of children taking school meals following the increase in price to 12p.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, local education authorities are currently carrying out a count to provide information about the total numbers taking the school meal following the new arrangements for charging and remission. Authorities have been asked to submit their returns to the Department by June 11.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether the Government are also requesting L.E.A.s to supply them with figures for the increase in the number of free meals which are being made available to children? Also, are
1144
they satisfied at the present time that all the children entitled to free meals are getting them?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, we know the percentage which is paid for, and that which is free of charge. For instance, in September of last year—this, I think, is really the answer to the noble Lord's question—67·9 per cent. of the pupils present in maintained schools in England and Wales took the meal, 59·5 per cent. paid and 8·4 per cent. received it free of charge. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary, 80 per cent. of children who are entitled to the free meal take it up.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the greatest assets for the future of this country is its children, and that investment in man should be the prime factor before any materialistic outlook? Will he please see that, if possible. the present policy is reversed, because our children are some of the finest in the world as a result of the policies of both Governments over the years of supplying milk and meals to schools?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding the House of the importance of this subject. It is for that very reason that the new remissions are more generous than they have ever been before, adding on 75 new pence to every part of the remission scale. That is why we are conducting our researches in two parts, one now and another one in the autumn, and why an overseeing eye will be kept on the whole matter by COMA—the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy —which has a special sub-committee dealing with this subject.
BARONESS SUM MERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government realise that poor children, who are being deprived of meals and milk, must inevitably have their growth stunted and that that stunted condition is permanent? That is why so many parents are much smaller than the children of to-day. Will the noble Lord therefore take this matter very seriously?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I genuinely take it seriously, and, most particularly, because whatever the noble

1145
Baroness, with her profession and experience, says on a subject like this must certainly be taken to heart. But 1 think it would be right to remind the House that it is exceedingly difficult to get conclusive evidence on this subject. None the less, for the reasons which the noble Baroness has given, and in addition to the answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, the Government are in August making the Family Incomes Supplement an automatic passport to a free school meal.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who live in working class areas know that there has been a huge reduction in the number of children taking dinners, because they are now taking sandwiches to school instead of getting a good meal? Is he further aware that the reduction in the number of children taking meals will be calamitous when the Tory Government bring in their next increase for these meals, for which the charges are being increased in two stages?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to be a little careful before he jumps to conclusions. When the noble Lord's Party raised the price of the meal in 1968—and also because it was the summer time—there was a reduction in the take up. By the following September that reduction had been made up.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the generally high standard of health in our schools has been accepted, and that a good deal of it has been attributed to the provision of school meals and free milk? Is it really necessary to reduce the standard and, statistically, to find out whether it is necessary to increase it again?
LORD BELSTEAD: I am sorry, my Lords, but I did not quite hear the noble Lord's question. The standard of the meal is not being reduced. The nutritional value remains precisely the same.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, the nutritional value of something which people cannot afford to buy is not very good for them, is it?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, once again I would ask noble Lords to be a little careful before they jump to con-
1146
elusions. If the noble Lord would like evidence, I shall give him evidence. If there are two parents with four children, they can now earn 90 new pence—that is, 18s. net—per week more than they could have done before April, and still have full entitlement to free meals for all those four children. if there are two parents with four children, who have entitlement, they can now earn £1·35p. net—that is £1·7s. Od.—more than they could have earned before April, and still have entitlement to free meals for one child. We are really trying to do our best in the context of our policy, which is to reallocate resources, particularly towards the building of primary schools in some of the poorer areas of the country.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, when the noble Lord was so critical of my noble friends who brought to his attention the rise in the number of children taking sandwiches to school, had he before him the remarks of Sir William Alexander who also said:
" There is growing concern among local authorities over the effects of a sudden growth in the number of children bringing sandwiches to school."?
Will the noble Lord give us an assurance that in the inquiries which he is making the nutritional effects of the recent changes will be thoroughly studied?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to make sure that the Press and radio give the fullest possible publicity to his very satisfactory and encouraging reply.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this has been a responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security, who have conducted a widespread campaign through the mass media. I am most grateful to my noble friend for bringing this subject to our attention, because we feel that if this has not had the desired effect by the autumn it will be necessary to look at it once again.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would it not be advisable for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to delegate, as it were, the No. 2 in command

1147
—that is, the noble Lord himself—to travel the country and go to every region, in order to get the reactions to the policy of this Government in regard to school meals?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think that the last part of what the noble Lord said is very sound advice. If any members of Her Majesty's Government who are in the Department travel the countryside, it is their business to ask all concerned. This we shall most certainly be trying to do.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that from all over the country there are coming reports of record reductions—as high as 20 per cent., and frequently more—in the percentage of children taking meals? Also, is he aware that at Warley, in Worcestershire, 35 school meal helpers have been laid off as a result of the reduction in the number of children taking school meals?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to wait for the first stage of the survey to be completed in only a few weeks' time; and then, more importantly—and I referred, I hope courteously, to the experience under the previous Government—for the second stage of the survey, which is to come in the autumn. I think perhaps we have now covered the ground and gone a little wider than the original Question.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, except for one—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I think we are in danger of turning this Question into a debate. I do not want to come between my noble friend and your Lordships, because I think my noble friend has acquitted himself pretty well and does not need me to intervene. But as there are some 28 speakers to follow in the two debates, I feel that it would be right to pass on now to the next Question.

DRUGS: CONTROL MEASURES IN THE SERVICES
2.59 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Ques-
1148
tion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence they have on drug addiction in the Services and what steps they are taking to counteract this.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, drug addiction as such is extremely rare in the Services. All commanding officers and medical officers are aware of the dangers of drug taking. Comprehensive instructions on drugs were issued to the Services in 1969, and lectures are now given to new entrants on the dangers of drug taking. Specialist teams have recently been set up to visit Service establishments and to give lectures to officers and N.C.O.s on the whole question.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, I wonder whether I may ask him three supplementary questions. As the bad influences come generally from contact with United States troops in Germany, and as many of our units go from Germany to Northern Ireland, where lack of discipline and control on a Vietnam basis would be extremely disastrous, could the noble Earl possibly arrange for some isolation of our troops from these influences? Secondly, could Queen's Regulations be adequately amended to enable this self-inflicted wound to be dealt with adequately by court-martial? Lastly, would the Minister ensure (he has already given me a reply to this particular question) that all officers are trained in the recognition of these symptoms, and that there is no danger of incidents being swept under the carpet?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have no evidence that contact with United States troops in Germany has led, as the noble Lord alleged, I think, to any increase in the incidence of drug-taking in the Services. With regard to his point about courts-martial, the action taken upon the discovery of a person in possession of drugs, or being addicted to drugs, depends upon the circumstances in which such an offence is discovered. In the noble Lord's last supplementary question he asked whether adequate training was being given. I answered

1149
that partially in my original Answer, and I would merely re-emphasise it by telling the noble Lord that, for instance, on June 10 a special team for the R.A.F. is being set up which consists of a police officer, a medical officer and a Home Office representative, all of whom are, in their own specific ways, concerned with drug-taking. This team will be available to give talks to Staff officers at command and group level on all aspects of the effects of drugs.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether, in the lectures which are given to the troops, any guidance is given as to the 'varying toxic effects of different drugs?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should need notice of that specific question, but I will try to find out the answer and let the noble Baroness know.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the noble Earl see that the people who are to give the lectures to the troops are carefully briefed about the nature of those lectures? Because over 50 years ago, when we used to receive lectures in the Army about another social evil, the effect of the lectures was to encourage people to experiment in that particular evil, rather than to curb them.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, as one who has just returned from a visit to B.A.O.R., may I ask my noble friend whether it is not a fact that drug addiction in the Forces in Germany is virtually nil?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that would confirm the information which I have.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYNLords, with the permission of the House my noble friend Lord Windlesham will be making a Statement shortly after 3.30 p.m. on United Kingdom passport holders.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.4 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF L1STOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
ORDERED TO REPORT: —
That the Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
1. On 23rd July, 1970, the First Report from the House of Lords' Offices Committee was omitted by an oversight from the Order Paper and was taken, by leave of the House, without notice. In the course of the exchanges which followed on the Floor of the House, the Leader of the House undertook to refer the implications of this action to the Procedure Committee for consideration. The Committee have accordingly considered the concept of " Notice " and " Leave of the House ", and submit the following Report.
I. NOTICE
Standing Order 32
2. The Committee consider that Standing Order 32 needs amendment. At present it reads as follows: —
"No debate to take place on matters raised without notice.
32. Where is is intended to raise a discussion on a question, notice of the question should be given in the. Order Paper. If a statement be made, or a question asked, which does not appear on the Order Paper, but of which private notice has been given, such statement or question should not be made the occasion for immediate debate unless the House so order."
3. The drafting of this Standing Order presents difficulties of construction because:—

(i) the first sentence refers to a question of unspecified nature;

(ii) the second sentence is specifically confined to Statements and PNQs; and

(iii) the side note suggests a wider application which is often taken to include Motions.

It is not clear, therefore, whether the Standing Order refers merely to Statements and PNQs or more widely to Starred and Un-starred Questions and Motions.
4. The Committee consider that Starred Questions are satisfactorily governed by Standing Order 33 and that there is, therefore, no need for them to be brought within the ambit of Standing Order 32.
On the other hand, the Committee feel that the Standing Orders relating to notice ought to cover specifically Unstarred Questions and Motions as well as Statements and Private Notice Questions. Accordingly, they recommend the following two Standing Orders in

1151
replacement of the existing Standing Order 32, to be inserted after Standing Order 33:℄
33A. PNQs and Statements. Questions of which private notice has been given may be asked, and statements made, without notice given in the Order Paper but these should not be made the occasion for immediate debate, unless the House so order.
33B. Unstarred Questions and Motions. Questions which may give rise to discussion (known as Unstarred Questions) and Motions of which notice is required, shall appear on the Order Paper of the day on which they are to be taken.
In connection with the proposed new Standing Order 33B, the Committee recommend that a note should be inserted in the Companion to make it clear that when notice is required, its appearance on the Order Paper of the day is a minimum requirement. The Committee consider that, wherever possible, such notice should appear not only on the White Order Paper used in the House, but also in the Notices and Orders of the Day which are circulated with the Minutes of Proceedings.
Standing Order 37 ("Business of which notice is not necessary")
5. The Committee have considered whether clarification is needed of the types of business that can be taken without notice. They note that the business which the House in practice allows to be taken without notice includes the following:—

(a) Royal Assent;

(b) Obituary tributes and personal statements;

(c) Ministerial Statements, PNQs;

(d) Statements or Questions on business, procedure and privilege;

(e) Oath of Allegiance;

(f) Presentation of Public Petitions;

(g) Manuscript Amendments to Bills and to Motions;

(h) Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons;

(i) Business expressly authorised under Standing Order 37, namely:—

(i) Messages from the Crown (Standing Order 37(1));

(ii) Messages from the Commons and First Reading of Commons Bills (Standing Order 37(2) and (3));

(iii) Introduction of Lords Bills (Standing Order 37(3)).

(j) Motions relating to the conduct of the business of the House, for example:—

(i) Motions for the adjournment of a Debate, or of the House;

(ii) In Committee of the Whole House, Motions to adjourn the debate on an Amendment, to adjourn the Committee, or to resume the House;

(iii) The Motion "That leave be not given to ask a Question ";

(iv) The Motion " That the Noble Lord be no longer heard ";

1152

(v) The Closure;

(vi) The previous Question.

6. These examples divide broadly into three categories:—

(a) business which does not involve a decision of the House;

(b) business which is expressly authorised under Standing Order 37 to be taken without notice;

(c) Motions which are concerned with the conduct of the business of the House.

Of the items listed in paragraph 5 above, the only ones which do not fall into any of these categories are (g) Manuscript Amendments to Bills and Motions; and (h) Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons.
Manuscript Amendments are, by definition, business of which notice has not been given. Commons Amendments and Reasons are often taken on motion without notice (though it is usual to give notice by means of an italicized note and where possible the Amendment or Reason is printed pursuant to Standing Order 46) but are not amongst the items authorised by Standing Order 37 for that treatment. The Committee consider that Standing Order 37 should be amended to make provision for the consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons without notice.
The Committee recommend—

(i) That the list of items of business which can be taken without notice should he noted in the revised Companion, making it clear that such a list cannot be exhaustive;

(ii) That Standing Order 37 he amended so as to recognise that Commons Amendments and Reasons may be taken on Motion without notice.

Standing Order 37(5)
7. The Committee further recommend that at the end of Standing Order 37(5) in place of the words (" immediately after Starred Questions ") there should be inserted the words
(" at any time by leave of the House.")
Standing Order 78 ("Standing Orders not to be made or dispensed with without notice")
8. The Committee have considered whether any amendment is desirable to Standing Order 78, which reads as follows:
" 78. No Motion shall be granted for making any new Standing Order, or for dispensing with a Standing Order of the House, unless Notice shall have been given in the Order Paper to consider the said Motion "
The Committee are of the opinion that it is important to preserve the sanctity of this Standing Order which has existed for over 270 years for the express purpose of protecting its Members against snap decisions taken without notice. The House of Lords is a House of part-time Members who cannot be expected to attend every day and the minimum of one day's notice is an essential safeguard against the taking of Business of which they have no knowledge and to which they

1153
have no chance of objecting. If Leave of the House were accepted as a substitute for notice the purpose of Standing Order 78 would be defeated and the authority of all Standing Orders undermined. They therefore recommend that no amendment or qualification of Standing Order 78 should be made.
II. LEAVE OF THE HOUSE
9. The Committee recommend that Leave of the House, or of a Committee of the House, must be unanimous in those cases where, if Leave were granted. the House or Committee would be deprived of a Question which would otherwise have been put from the Woolsack or from the Chair; and that, in all other cases where Leave is sought, it is granted by a majority of the House and the objection of a single Peer does not suffice to withhold it.
10. The adoption of this principle would mean that Leave would be withheld if a single Lord objected in the following examples:—

(i) Leave to withdraw an amendment or a Motion which is before the House;

(ii) Leave to move Special Orders en bloc;

(iii) Leave to move amendments or clauses en bloc;

(iv) the motion that the Order of Commitment (or Re-Commitment) of a Bill be discharged;

(v) Leave to withdraw a Bill.

Leave would be withheld by a majority decision of the House, in the following instances:—

(a) Leave to ask Questions;

(b) Leave to make Ministerial or personal Statements;

(c) Leave to take business not on the Order Paper of which notice is not required;

(d) Leave to speak more than once to one Motion (see paragraph 13 below).

The Committee recommend that the above examples should be included in the revised Companion.
11. The Committee recommend a new Standing Order to govern Leave of the House: —
"Leave of the House.
29A. Leave of the House or of a Committee of the House must be unanimous in those cases where. if Leave were granted, the House or Committee would be deprived of a Question which would otherwise have been put from the Woolsack or the Chair. In all other cases where Leave is sought, it is granted by a majority of the House and the objection of a single Peer does not suffice to withhold it ''.
Standing Order 29
12. When a debate arises on a subject which is the special province of one particular Minister and there is a requirement both for a statement of Government policy early in the debate and also for the Minister to wind up for the Government at the end, it is customary for the House, in these circumstances, to allow the Minister to speak twice. This is, however, a clear contravention of Standing Order 29, which says:—
1154
" 29. No Lord is to speak twice to any motion, whether on a Bill or other matter (save only when the House is in Committee) except the Mover in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his speech (to new matter being introduced) and that not without the leave of the House first obtained."
13. The Committee are of the opinion that the custom of allowing a Minister to speak more than once with the Leave of the House in the circumstances described above should be continued and regularised and that a similar dispensation should be made for the Chairman of Committees (or his Deputy) and the Chairman of a Select Committee. Ministers have a special responsibility, since they owe a duty to the House to explain Government policy and to impart information. The Chairman of Committees, or of a Select Committee, may also need to speak more than once with the Leave of the House, e.g. in debate on a Private Bill, or on the Report of a Select Committee.
14. The Committee recommend that Standing Order 29 be redrafted as follows:—
" 29. No Lord is to speak more than once to any Motion, save only:—

(a) when the House is in Committee;

(b) the mover of a Motion in reply;

(c) with the Leave of the House, which may only be granted:—

(i) to a Lord to explain himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced) or

(ii) to the Chairman of Committees, or in his absence a Deputy Chairman, the Chairman of a Select Committee on the Report of such a Committee, or a Minister of the Crown."

THE EARL OF L1STOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS: WORKING OF 1970 ACT
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY rose to call attention to the working of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In three days' time it will be the first anniversary of the Royal Assent to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. We were grateful to the Government when, shortly after taking office, they introduced the constant

1155
attendance allowance, but I think it is fair to say that disabled people have been waiting and wondering. I do not know whether there will be an explosion in this House this afternoon, but what I hope is that there will be a " fall-out "—a fall-out of good will starting from this House, spreading through the Civil Service and into the town halls. Having listened to the Secretary of State in another place on Friday, I am myself convinced that he has the interests of disabled people at heart; and having listened to the Minister of State in this House about a year ago, I am quite sure he has the interests of disabled people at heart, too, because if your Lordships remember he was pressing the late Government for the introduction of dropped kerbs. I am hoping that we shall hear something from him about that later this afternoon.
My Lords, local authorities vary greatly in the amount of money they spend on disabled people. The figures were given in Hansard of another place on February 24. At the top of the league, or table, is Oldham, which spends £70 per registered disabled person, and at the bottom of the league is Salford, which spends only £3 although I do not think they will be able to keep that up for long with Mr. Alfred Morris in a neighbouring constituency! My own county of the North Riding spends (or spent, because these are the figures for 1969–70) £16 per registered disabled person; or, if you like to express it another way, five pence per head of the population. The Secretary of State said recently that he envisaged an annual growth rate of 9½ per cent. in the expenditure by local authorities on the sick and disabled, and I therefore suggest that it would be a fair question to ask our local authorities just how their estimates for the current year compare with those of the previous year.
It would be quite beyond me to try to review the whole of the working of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; so I should like just to concentrate on one or two aspects of it. First, I should like to say a word or two about access to public buildings, because this is particularly important for disabled people. This problem was highlighted recently when the film The Raging Moon, about disability, was shown at the ABC2 Cinema in the Tottenham Court Road,
1156
when neither the author, Peter Marshall, nor one of the stars, Michael Flanders, was able to attend the film showing because both of them were in wheelchairs and the cinema was inaccessible to those in wheelchairs.
Recently, a movable ramp has been invented by the Bath Institute of Medical Engineering. It is made of expanded metal and can be screwed down or taken up again within an hour. I believe there can be few local authorities who would not benefit from one of these ramps. Our friend who opened the batting in another place on Friday said that if there was a recipe for the disabled it was a touch of sympathy, a dash of understanding, a lot of imagination and the whole topped off with immediate, positive action. I would suggest that here is an opportunity for local authorities to show their good will. I would suggest that they get in touch with the Bath Institute at St. Martin's Hospital, Bath, to find out whether one of these ramps would meet their own requirements.
Talking of immediate positive action, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on his boldness in ordering 1,000 chemical closets—" a thousand decent, seemly, chemical closets" as he described them in the debate last Friday. He was referring to the fact that there are 200,000 households in this country which have a very severely or appreciably handicapped person without an inside W.C. I think this was a bold stroke on his part, and I hope very much that the local authorities will be equally bold in taking up the suggestion which I have made. Of course, suitable housing is a tremendous help to disabled people. I know this from my own experience. If I am left on my own, have to do the washing-up and cannot get my knees under the sink, I do not get on very fast. It is something of tremendous importance. I was very encouraged to see that in the six months after the passing of the Act, 27 local authorities had submitted housing schemes which include purpose-built accommodation for the disabled. This is a very real problem, one that obviously cannot be solved overnight and which will require a tremendous effort on the part of the local authorities assisted by the voluntary bodies. I have the honour to be the President of a housing association for this purpose, the St. Giles Housing Association.
There are two other matters on which I should like to touch. One which particularly affects disabled people is the sense of isolation we sometimes feel, a sense of lack of involvement in society, of being a little bit out of the main stream. Obviously, the best answer here is to have a job, but in this connection the figure at the moment of employable disabled people who are at the moment unemployed is 12·7 per cent. which is very much greater than the national average; and the tragedy is, of course, that in a time of difficulty when people are having 10 cut back a bit it is often the disabled people who suffer first. As lime goes on and we provide better training for disabled people, there are going to be more arid more disabled people with a skill. But what is the use of a skill if you cannot find work? I was very glad to hear in the debate on Friday that the Department of Employment and Productivity are already engaged in a survey of the whole problem of employment for disabled people. I should like to ask the Government when this survey will be completed, because this is a pressing problem at this time.
The other guard against a sense of isolation is social life. Again, I read in my Hansard for last Friday that a survey had shown that 7 per cent. of disabled people have no regular social contact with neighbours or friends. When you come down into the under 20 age group the figure is very much higher. 33 per cent. one in three, it appears, of disabled people under the age of 20 have no regular contact with their friends and neighbours. This, I would suggest, gives a tremendous opportunity for visiting by able-bodied young people, and I would commend those youth clubs who have gone out of their way to ask young disabled people to come into them and to join in their activities.
I should like to finish by saying this. I am sure that all disabled people want to be as independent as they possibly can and., if possible, to earn their own living, when of course—just as a matter of incidence—they will cost much less to the community. What we should like to ask from the Government and the local authorities is the right environment to enable us to do this. I beg to move for Papers
3.16 p.m.
MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): I know that the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. May I say with great respect to him how much I enjoyed listening to his speech, which was both eloquent and highly impressive. It is also a great pleasure, I am sure, to all your Lordships to see the " Mobile Bench " back in action again. The noble Lord was kind enough to say some nice things about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and me and I am very grateful to him. He asked me about my dropped kerbs, which have nothing to do with fallen arches, but are in fact the idea that I put forward at the time of the debate on the Bill, which was that there should be sloping kerbs at pedestrian crossings to help both those in wheelchairs and also those pushing perambulators. This is a matter for the Department of the Environment and I will ask my noble friend to reply when he winds up the debate. I am sure that the noble Viscount will feel very well satisfied that, despite the long labours of your Lordships, a great many noble Lords have put their names down to speak in this debate. I am particularly pleased to see my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne breaking silence after many years and I am very much looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
As the noble Viscount said, this is a most appropriate moment to review the effect of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It is almost a year since it came on the Statute Book and we are much better informed now since the publication of the recent survey of the handicapped and impaired in Great Britain published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The two parts of this survey already published contain a mass of statistical information and there is still another volume to come concerned with finance. It is certainly not easy to absorb all this information in a matter of a few weeks, but at the same time there are certain general findings of the survey which are immediately applicable to the consideration of this problem.

1159
I have not been long enough on these Government Benches to forget the time when I was sitting opposite and I can well remember then feeling how many shortcomings there were in our social services. I can remember how my colleagues and I demanded the expenditure of more money on various aspects of the services and I can also remember thinking how complacent the speeches were from the Government Front Benches. Now that I sit on this side of the House I hope sincerely to convince your Lordships that we are indeed far from complacent in this matter, that we recognise the serious problem that exists, that we know that with limited resources it cannot be solved by the passing of one Act and that we have a consistent and constructive policy which we have already started to implement.
The noble Lord quoted my right honourable friend's speech in another place last Friday and he put admirably the policy that we are pursuing. Quite simply, it is that whenever reasonably possible our aim should be to keep people as active as possible and to keep them at home. In this the dictates of humanity are often supported by the lessons of cost benefit. We have already announced various measures, all with the aim in view of assisting the handicapped to live at home. In cash terms, we are providing £30 million per annum extra for the payment of an invalidity allowance to the chronic sick and an attendance allowance to the very severely disabled. Apart from increasing old age pensions generally by £1 a week from next September, we have made special provision for the over 80s, we have improved the earnings rule for the wives of chronic sick persons and we have increased the benefit for dependant children of a chronically sick parent. In every case we have made it clear that this is only a beginning and that we hope to improve on these provisions, which at least demonstrate our deep concern for the disabled and the handicapped and which are intended to carry out our first priority of enabling people to manage on their own.
I think it worthy of note that we see here one of the advantages of the amalgation of two Ministries into the one
1160
Department of Health and Social Security; and I readily concede that this was achieved under the previous Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is able to strike a balance between cash and care and to ensure that both sides contribute to the solution of individual problems. But cash alone is not the whole answer. To help the handicapped to live at home there must be available other services provided by the local authorities, such as home helps, home nursing, meals-on-wheels, day centres, adaptation of housing and various facilities in the home which can be of such assistance to handicapped people. Of necessity, these are individual matters and must be left to the local authority to make an individual assessment. It is worth mentioning that although Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons' Act 1970 gave statutory form to local authority's powers, it did not introduce any new services; nor did it provide any money for their implementation. However, this Government have allocated additional financial resources to local authorities to enable them to carry out some of their responsibilities in this field.
In terms of capital, in this and the following two years the Government are making available loan sanction to enable local authorities to build 36 homes designed specially for the physically handicapped, 72 day centres for the physically handicapped, 31 combined day centres for the handicapped and elderly, together with a number of smaller capital projects. In terms of revenue we have accepted local authority proposals in the rate support grant negotiations which will add 12 per cent. to their expenditure this year and a further 12 per cent. next year. On top of these agreed amounts, an extra £11 million over two years has been added by the Government for the improvement of local authority health and personal social services, including Section 2 and related services which we wish to see improved. It is of course ultimately the responsibility of local authorities how they spend the money allocated to them, but we are confident that they will recognise the needs of the physically and mentally handicapped in their plans for spending this additional money.

1161
In the Hospital Service we have direct responsibility for the allocation of funds, and we have increased capital expenditure on services for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly by some £90 million over the next four years, and about £105 million additional revenue expenditure. As your Lordships are aware, we have also set aside an extra £3 million for special units for the young chronic sick. I am able to give the House some further information about the allocation of that money. We have so far allocated £1,304,000 to start 18 schemes in the present year This will provide a further 455 beds, a very considerable increase over the present provision of 28 units and 710 beds. There are also three schemes planned, to begin this year, which are being financed from the normal allocations, and we have asked Regional Hospital Boards to put in firm bids for schemes to start in the next three years which will take up the balance of the £3 million allocated.
In particular we wish to see a significant increase in the domiciliary services available to the handicapped. The O.P.C.S. survey draws attention to the need to increase the provision of home helps. At least twice as many are required to meet the needs of disabled housewives. It suggests that home nurses and health visitors, too, have a most important part to play, and although there are many other urgent calls on their time they make an important and valuable contribution in meeting the special health needs of the handicapped person living alone. There is need, too, for more homes, more training centres and more and better trained staff to run them. It is for such purposes that we have allocated additional funds to local authorities and we shall do our best to see that they are put to good use.
Preliminary study of the survey suggests that there are in England alone some one and a quarter million people of all ages living in their own homes who are handicapped to the extent that they need some help from others in carrying out at least some of the normal activities of daily life. Nearly half a million are so severely handicapped that most activities prove difficult for them while there is a smaller number, amounting perhaps to one-sixth of a million, who are very severely handicapped and cannot be left alone for more than a short period during
1162
the day. Most of these people are elderly and the majority of them are women. Perhaps the most striking figures in the survey are that there are 8,200 people very severely handicapped living alone and of these 8,000 are women and mostly old. It seems likely that a very high proportion of them are already receiving local authority services and one should never underrate the support given by families and by neighbours. Nevertheless, there appears at first sight to be a priority need here, and my right honourable friend has already announced that he is asking local authorities to take active steps within their own organisation and by consultation with general practitioners and voluntary bodies to ensure that very severely handicapped people who are living alone have all the help that they need.
The report of the survey shows that for Great Britain as a whole over 40 per cent. of all handicapped were at that time receiving local authority services. A higher proportion, some 50 per cent., of severely and very severely handicapped people were getting local authority services, and they were provided to as many as 70 per cent. of the severely and very severely handicapped living alone. This is not a negligible provision. It provides a very sound basis for further development.
I should like to say a word about Section 1 of the 1970 Act which will come into effect on October 1 next. We have been accused at various times of delaying the implementation of this section and of misinterpreting its meaning. As far as the delay is concerned, we need time to prepare guidance. Moreover, we have always felt that it was right, and indeed essential, to allow directors of social services to have time to organise their departments before embarking on any major new exercise of this sort. Indeed the time between now and October 1 is short enough. As for the meaning of the section itself, it was always accepted at the time of the passing of the Act, both in another place and here, that the main objective was to identify those in need of assistance and to put them in touch with the available services. Quite clearly, we want everybody within a local authority area to know the services that are available, and this is the object of Section 1(2) of the Act.
Moreover, the O.P.C.S. survey makes it quite clear that many of the disabled

1163
object to being registered and naturally their wishes must be respected. My Department is anxious to do all that it can to help, and we are engaged on the preparation of a booklet for wide distribution which would give guidance to handicapped people and their friends on how and where to seek help. I am sure that in this field in particular there is great scope for the harnessing of voluntary effort, and I believe it to be of the first importance that local authority staff faced with so many daunting problems should make the best possible use of the voluntary assistance available to them. While on the subject of the part that can be played by voluntary bodies, I find it impossible not to mention the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough —or Stella Reading, as she was better known to her very many friends. She epitomised the spirit of selfless service that inspires voluntary societies, and the W.R.V.S. stands as a worthy memorial to her massive achievements.
Quite clearly we also want local authorities to know what their problems are, and this they can best achieve by a local survey as envisaged under Section 1 of the Act. Near total identification may be a final step in a process which begins with local surveys, or a gradual process of identification may be carried out simultaneously with surveying and publicity work. But it is for authorities individually to determine what would be most helpful for them and most useful for handicapped people in their area; we should not wish them to divert many highly qualified people to the task of determining the level of need and hence diminishing the services for the people for which this Act provides.
My Lords, there are two particular matters to which I should like to refer. The survey shows that the chief cause of handicap is arthritis. There is a great deal of research being carried out into this condition but we are in touch with the Medical Research Council about the possibility of sponsoring additional research. I should emphasise that this is an extremely complex field and that it is not money which is the limiting factor so much as finding profitable research lines to pursue.
Secondly, a word about aids and equipment which are so obviously important
1164
in helping the handicapped to live at home. My right honourable friend has the whole question of aids and equipment for the disabled under review and this is one of the matters now being discussed with the local authority associations. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as well as the Secretary of State and I have recently visited the Disabled Living Foundation Exhibition and we are maintaining close contact with the voluntary bodies active in this field. Our task as we see it is to find ways of spreading information to those concerned about reliable aids.
I have been able to touch on only one or two matters covered by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and I fully realise that there are a number of other subjects covered in the Act to which your Lordships will wish to refer in the course of this debate. My noble friend Lord Sandford will do his best to answer some of those questions when he speaks at the end of the debate. I have no doubt that a good case will be made for devoting more resources to one or other aspect of the sections in the Act. Nevertheless, we have to realise that in the context of demands on total resources this Act covers only one portion of the population in need and there remain insistent demands to provide more facilities for the hospital service, the mentally ill, the old who are not handicapped, the homeless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts and a host of others. I would suggest to your Lordships that within the short time that this Government have been in power we have made a significant start in providing for the handicapped and that we have amply demonstrated our concern and our determination to devote greater resources to those who are most in need.
3.36 p.m.
LORD CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I propose to draw a veil over the number of years during which I have received delicate hints from some of my noble friends and some pretty indelicate ones from other quarters—that I should get to my feet and make my maiden speech. This long period of silence makes this experience no less unnerving, so I crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments. The reason that I have decided to take the plunge to-day is because this is a subject which interests

1165
me deeply and one in which I have a particular personal interest. What this Act sets out to achieve is a society in which the sick and disabled can live with dignity; a society in which they can find opportunity and the tools necessary to leading useful and satisfying lives, and where help is given with discretion. If all this is to be accomplished, it would seem to me that the prerequisites are understanding, good communications and of course money.
There are many points to be made as to how these ideals can be put into practice and noble Lords will have heard a great many, I am sure, but I should like to stress two, to my mind, vital ones —the utilisation of existing voluntary services and the means of communication. Ours is a country, I believe, without peer in its record and achievement of voluntary service, and I would suggest that we should seek to harness the know-how and considerable spadework of certain voluntary bodies concerned with the problems of the sick and disabled. It is possible that to derive maximum benefit from these bodies a survey should be carried out with the aim of investigating any overlap of activites, but the work already done by these bodies and which has been entirely financed by voluntary contributions would surely save the time and money of local councils. I would mention, for instance, the work of the Central Council for the Disabled, the original publication of a four volume loose-leaf book entitled Aids for the Disabled, financed entirely by the National Fund for Crippling Diseases and now known in many countries, and the work of the Disabled Living Foundation which I visited last week.
That Foundation, situated in Kensington High Street, has set up a permanent exhibition of a truly remarkable range of aids, many items being adaptations of standard manufactured articles, including not only wheelchairs, hoists, adjustable beds, crutches, sticks, portable ramps, handrails and so on. but also aids for washing, cooking, laundry, eating and drinking, reading, sewing and knitting and a host of other gadgets. All problems of the disabled are studied. be it housing, furniture, clothing, employment or recreation, and information concerning all these matters is easily obtainable from a sophisticated filing system known, I
1166
think, as Storage Retrieval. At the moment this service is entirely free to individuals, and, by subscription, to institutions such as local authorities, hospitals and voluntary organisations. In my view, this exhibition should be copied in other large cities. I believe that Lady Hamilton, who is the Chairman of the Disabled Living Foundation, would be happy to assist with her knowledge and experience in the setting up of similar establishments. Backed by the information service in London these exhibitions would be much cheaper to run than their prototype. They would, I believe, be invaluable in communicating what services and equipment are available.
Every effort should be made to communicate with the doctors and the disabled persons themselves. There are many who are not desperately disabled and who are philosophically learning to " live with it ". They could be greatly helped and their burdens made lighter. But how are we to reach these people? Surely, by the mass media. So much could be done by informative articles in the newspapers and magazines, and on the radio; even better, by television programmes showing a disabled person using these aids and equipment in his home. Such a programme would be immensely encouraging and helpful to the disabled, instructive for doctors and medical students and of great interest to other viewers. There are several noble Lords who hold commanding positions in the newspaper and television industries and I urgently appeal to them to use their influence in support of this concept.
My Lords, we all know how much greater is the response to this Act by some local authorities than by others. Some of them may, perhaps, think that an extra heavy burden has been put on their shoulders. I do not seek to minimise their task. Some of them have responded magnificently; but some show a very regrettable reluctance to act at all. In other cases disappointing performance probably stems from lack of knowledge to understand the problems, and lack of communication with bodies possessing that knowledge. Here, I would cite a personal experience, or rather the experience of my wife who, with the invaluable aid of Mr. Barran of the Automobile Association. conducted a virtually

1167
single-handed campaign on behalf of disabled drivers. She found all along the line the same story—complete lack of understanding of the actual problems involved and lack of any real direction from the top to those members of the police and wardens who have to carry out the provisions of the Traffic Acts. Finally, she saw Mr. Ainley. I think that then he was First Secretary at the Ministry of Transport. After listening courteously he said, with true understanding. " In other words, you want the spirit of the law extended to disabled persons and not the letter." Mr. Ainley promised to take up the matter with the relevant authorities, since when great progress has been made and much hardship avoided; and we both hope that many disabled drivers share my wife's gratitude to those who have tried to solve this problem.
Incidentally, my Lords, Section 21 of this Act, which deals with the subject of disabled drivers, is, I gather, to be implemented any day now. It will certainly be a relief when this occurs and when badges for disabled drivers issued by one authority are recognised by others. I should like to ask the local authorities to consider whether the appointment of liaison officers, either from themselves or through the voluntary services, would not be helpful in co-ordinating the activities of the statutory and voluntary organisations in their respective areas. If these liaison officers were to meet each other at regular intervals and report on progress, would they not help to raise the standard of services provided by the less enlightened? It is so much a question of human relationships, and 'therefore dependent upon a flexible attitude to individual cases and circumstances. The spirit of the Act rather than a rigid adherence to the letter of the law is what is really important. In this matter the criterion is that there are no criteria.
Turning for a moment, my Lords, to the matter of finance I do not think it can be too often repeated that what needs to be examined is net cost. A relatively small expenditure of ratepayers' money to assist a disabled person to live in his own 'home is preferable to the much larger cost to the taxpayer of maintaining him in hospital. Thorough co-operation between hospitals and local
1168
authorities could result in a very large net saving of money. From a financial point of view plans hammered out to release disabled persons and return them to their homes would, apart from being humane, ease the pressure on the hospitals and be financially prudent.
There is one small observation which I should like 'to make on the subject of Section 4, which deals with the means of access for the disabled to or within a building. It often imparcticable to provide lifts for all the people who visit a building. When this applies I think it would be kindly to display a notice indicating that the lift is for elderly and disabled persons. It is not unusual to see such persons patiently waiting to enter a lift while it is being used by young, able bodied people who could very easily use the stairs and be the better for the exercise. I have in mind such buildings as the Royal Festival Hall, with which your Lordships will be well acquainted, and which is one of the very few buildings in which entertainment and culture is provided and where lifts are installed.
Finally, my Lords, there is much to be done in the short term. I think that good communications and active cooperation between the statutory and voluntary organisations and the hospitals are all important. In the longer term, if we are to attain the high standard of service to which I am sure all noble Lords will aspire, we must not overlook the need for teaching the hospital ancillary services, the social welfare services and medical students about the special problems of the disabled. I am indeed grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: ADMISSION OF U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS
3.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place. It reads as follows:
" The Government have now completed their review of the position of United Kingdom passport holders. We

1169
have had discussions with Governments in East Africa with a view to facilitating more orderly movement of United Kingdom passport holders to this country and reducing the waiting time for vouchers. Discussions with the Government of Uganda were interrupted by the change of Government there, but have been resumed.
" The Government have decided to double the rate of entry of United Kingdom passport holders by the issue of 3,000, instead of 1.500. special vouchers a year for heads of households. This increase will take effect from June 1. In addition, over and above this there will be a once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers. These will be issued over the next six months.
" The Government have also decided at the same time to reduce the number of Commonwealth citizens entering this country to take up employment. They intend to cut from 4,000 to about 2,000 the annual rate of admission of employment voucher holders. My honourable friend is today circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the changes in the voucher scheme to effect this reduction. In brief, no more category A vouchers will he issued to independent Commonwealth countries (other than Malta) for unskilled or semi-skilled employment; and a reduction will be made in the issue of category B vouchers.
" I believe these steps will provide the best attainable solution of a difficult human problem of conflicting rights and interests which has long given concern to both sides of the House."
My Lords, that ends my right honourable friend's Statement. I have arranged for copies of the details of the changes in the voucher scheme to be placed in the Library of the House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. It deals, as he says. with an immensely difficult human problem—one far more, difficult, I think, than many commentators have been prepared to accept. In so far as the steps outlined in the Statement represent a contribution to the solution of the East African problem, we welcome them. May I ask the
1170
noble Lord three questions? First, have other Commonwealth countries been consulted over this change, and, if so, what has been their reaction? Secondly, since the noble Lord talks of consultation with Uganda and Kenya, may we take it that the increase in the rate of entry will not be offset by an increased pressure on those two countries? Thirdly, will the noble Lord make clear what will be the effect on this agreement of the Immigration Bill, if and when that reaches the Statute Book?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join on behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. We certainly welcome the decision to double the number of special vouchers for United Kingdom passport holders and we particularly welcome this announcement of a once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers, for which, as the noble Lord is aware, a number of Members of another place and Peers have been pressing for some time. I hope that it will meet cases of very real hardship.
I should like to ask two questions on the latter part of the Statement. The noble Lord said that the Government intend to cut from 4,000 to 2.000 the number of employment voucher holders to be admitted. I understand that at present the maximum is 8,500 but that only about 4,000 are being taken up, so does this not really mean that the maximum is to be reduced from 8,500 to 2,000? If that is so, I think the Statement has given a rather false impression, and that point needs to be clarified. Lastly, if this new legislation is to be put into operation at a comparatively early date, what is the point of making these changes with regard to the admission of employment voucher holders?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. I should like to thank both noble Lords for what I think has been, in general. a welcome for the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me about consultations with Commonwealth countries other than the parties directly concerned, in which I would include India, with whom we have had direct consultations. as well as the three African Governments. In answering this question, it is necessary to distinguish between numbers and policies. It has not been the policy of

1171
successive Governments to consult with other Commonwealth Governments on changes in the numbers admitted to this country under the voucher scheme. But where changes in policies are concerned, as in the Immigration Bill, there have been consultations with all the Commonwealth Governments over the new structure of control proposed in the Bill.
The noble Lord asked me about the phasing of the new arrangements in East Africa. I can tell him that we feel that, as a result of negotiations that have taken place, there is a reasonable prospect of regulating in a more orderly and systematic way the numbers of those wishing to leave East Africa and the numbers of special vouchers that are available.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked what will be the impact of the Immigration Bill on the scheme that I have announced to-day. The answer is that this is an interim scheme, a change in existing voucher arrangements relating to the control of Commonwealth immigration which have continued at varying levels since 1962. The Bill itself, as noble Lords will know, replaces the separate streams of control of aliens and Commonwealth citizens with a single system of control for all those who do not have the right of abode. There will be a work permit system for everyone in that category, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is working on that and will make a Statement in due course.
As to the numbers, this is a somewhat technical point but an important one. The noble Lord. Lord Wade, is quite right in saying that at present the total of vouchers for the Commonwealth is 8,500. For the last three years not more than 4,000 of these have been taken up by those who have come here to work, and we are now reducing that figure by approximately one half, to 2.000. The total number available under the interim scheme will be 2,700, and the details will be available in your Lordships' Library.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may 1 be allowed to congratulate my noble friend on this constructive contribution to dealing with an extraordinarily difficult problem and on the care-
1172
ful and systematic study that has obviously gone into it? May I ask him whether the new figure of 3.000 a year applies to all United Kingdom passport holders in the Commonwealth, or only to those from East Africa?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Only to those from East Africa.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one who moved the rejection of the Bill, when I was given the support of nearly all the Conservative Ministers concerned. may I ask whether, under these proposals (and I should like to study them in detail before making further comment) any significant number of the British passport holders in East Africa will be allowed to come into this country? Is not the doubling of the figure quite insignificant compared to the number of people to whom we gave a pledge that they would have citizenship rights and all the rights of carrying passports? While I appreciate that the Home Secretary has said that this is a matter on the consciences of other members of the Government, as it must be, is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to do something more to meet these obligations into which we have entered?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not agree that the number is insignificant. It represents an increase of 100 per cent. over all, with an additional special allocation for those in extreme need over the next six months. It has to be related, and is most usefully related perhaps, to the size of the waiting list, to the number of those who have made application in East African countries, which is something in excess of 8,000. So, on the numbers I have announced, it would take something in the order of two years to work off that waiting list. But, of course, others may be added to it subsequently.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Lord's answer to my first supplementary question that there have been no consultations with other Commonwealth countries? Would he not agree that this is not simply a question of changing the numbers? Is it not inconceivable that the Commonwealth Governments should learn of this for the first time after this Statement was made?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am advised that this is in line with what has been the policy of successive Governments, including the noble Lord's own Government at the time of the 1968 Act. I ought to correct what I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. The new quota of 3,000 applies to all United Kingdom passport holders anywhere in the world, though it is expected that in practice it will have effect only in East Africa. Unfortunately, the position is the reverse of what I said.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a simple but important question about Gibraltar? Are the people of Gibraltar in any way affected, or may we take it that the arrangements and undertakings given to them, that they should have free admittance into the United Kingdom, remain in force?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I can speak with absolute certainty on that. The changes that have been referred to will not in any way affect the entry of Gibraltarians into Britain.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, regarding Commonwealth consultation, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this was urged during the period of the previous Government as well as during that of the present Government, and it is not only the East African nations which are concerned but also India? Would it not have been better to have had discussions with all these Governments before a decision was reached? And have they been informed of the decision?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not pick up what I said earlier: the Government of India has been consulted about these changes.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord give an estimate of the total numbers of people in East Africa with these passports who may be expected to apply for entry?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, yes; the total number is of the order of 150,000 in the three East African countries. How many would wish to come to this country is an extremely difficult
1174
question to answer. I gave a figure of something in excess of 8,000 people, heads of families, who have so far made application. Whether larger numbers will wish to come here, go to India or remain in East Africa will depend very much on conditions in East Africa.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this new figure of 3,000 has to be looked at in relation to the total figure of 150,000. It might take fifty years to deal with them.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was at the Home Office at the time of the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1968 he would have made that assumption. I do not think we can assume that every United Kingdom passport holder in East Africa will necessary want to come here. Many of them were born in India and have very close links with India.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS: WORKING OF 1970 ACT
4.4 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashhourne, will not think me impertinent if I congratulate him on his maiden speech and say that as a maiden speech it was in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. It was brief and to the point, it made a valuable contribution to our discussion this afternoon and. above all else, it was non-controversial. I understand that the noble Lord, in his time, has been an amateur tennis champion, and perhaps he will understand me when I say that 1 am sure I am voicing the view of your Lordships that he has won his first match with many games in hand and we hope it will not be long before he plays another.
My Lords, I want to be brief this afternoon, but I should like to say that I think it will be to the everlasting credit of the last Government that the Act which we are discussing to-day found its way on to the Statute Book. I also believe that it will be to the everlasting credit of this Government if they continue

1175
to take steps and make a sincere and sustained effort to see that the Act is fully implemented by all local authorities. I listened with considerable interest and some sympathy and appreciation to what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about what has been achieved so far, but we must bear in the forefront of our minds that the successful working of this Act will depend not so much on the Government—although, of course, it depends very largely on them—but on the way in which local authorities do what is required of them in the Act. I feel that the Government should have moved a little faster in this matter than they have, but I realise that this is a matter of feeling.
We have been reminded that we are coming up to the first anniversary of the Royal Assent to this Act, and Section 1 has yet to be implemented although we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the appointed day has been fixed. Section 1 of the Act is quite clear. It lays a responsibility upon the local authority to inform themselves of the number of persons within their area to whom the section applies, and to the need for the local authority to make a register of people who are likely to benefit under the Act.
I will not burden your Lordships with Section 2, which again is quite clear. I could not accept the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for not having fixed an earlier date than October 1. I should have thought that very soon after the passing of the Act the local authorities could have been encouraged to have started compiling their lists, rather than waiting until October 1 this year, knowing full well that for many of them this is a gigantic task and one which will take them a long time to do.
I also wish to draw the noble Lord's attention to the circular which he and his right honourable friends sent out on August 17, 1970. I think this is quite shocking. Dealing with Section 1—and this is a circular which was sent out by four Government Departments to local authorities, commenting upon an Act—it says:
" It is not "—
and I repeat the word " not "—
" a requirement of the Section that authorities should attempt 100 per cent. identification and registration of the handicapped."
1176
I think that is quite bad, and I will give my reasons. The noble Lord may not agree with me. The reasons given in the circular are that this registration would be difficult. But local authorities exist to overcome difficulties. That is their role; and if they cannot perform it there should be people who can.
The circular goes on to say that it would be an expensive and time-consuming exercise—but this is the role of the local authority, and what they are there for: to look after the needs of the people within the area whom they seek to serve. If they are told it is not intended that they should attempt 100 percent. identification and registration, surely this could be construed by some local authorities—and I believe it is so construed—as an invitation to them not to bother too much about the register. From my knowledge of some local authorities, I believe that many of them will in fact act upon it. This statement in the circular could go some way to undermining the value of the Act. I believe it to be an unfortunate sentence. I hope that the Government will look at it because I am sure that they will be, in the course of time, sending out other circulars in which perhaps this could be put right. I do not know whether it is fair to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to comment on that matter when he comes to speak, because it may not be possible for him to do so in the time available.
The need for a time limit in respect of the compilation of the register of the chronically sick and disabled is in my view important. When the previous Government were in power, I moved an Amendment calling on local authorities to compile their registers and to submit them to the Secretary of State within 12 months. That Amendment was defeated. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider fixing a time limit, so that within a period of, say, one year the Secretary of State could get some idea of what the position is in all local authorities throughout the country, and what is likely to be required. This would give the local authorities a year, if a year was fixed as the period—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that it is quite an onerous undertaking. We do not know the size

1177
of the problem. We think we know roughly its size, but we really do not know the full extent of it. I believe I am right: in saying that the City of Manchester, which has quite a reputation for its vast and comprehensive network of social services, did not realise the full extent of the situation concerning the chronically sick and disabled in Manchester until they undertook a careful investigation of the problem; and they intend eventually to have personal visits made.
Some local authorities, I recognise, have got off the mark quickly, and are to-day in possession of information which they have never had before: they know that there are many more people in their area needing help of whom they did not know a month or two ago. I do not want to comment this afternoon on the achievements of some of the more progressive of our local authorities. I have reason to believe that some of my friends will be comenting on what certain individual local authorities have achieved. I want to take what is perhaps a more critical, and maybe, in the view of some of your Lordships, a more pessimistic view of the situation. I am concerned, however, with those local authorities who are moving slowly and those who are not moving at all. I should like the Government to state quite clearly that the services provided in Section 2 are mandatory. I do not think that all local authorities believe that it is a statutory obligation on them to provide the services set out in Section 2 when needed.
A large number of local authorities are dragging their feet, and I know from personal inquiries that I have made of some directors of social services that some arc not proposing to implement Section 2 at all. If your Lordships will forgive my being personal for a moment, I am chairman of a national voluntary organisation that has been providing for 31 years, since 1938, radio and television to bedridden, housebound and aged poor. Since this Act came into force, we have been inundated by some 40 or 50 local authorities wanting to know how they can get radio and television from our voluntary society. In the course of conversation, several of them have said quite definitely that their local authority has no intention of implementing Section 2. I want to ask the Government whether
1178
it is possible to find out from local authorities what they intend to do, because the success of the Act will depend in the last analysis on what they do, and not so much on Government circulars or directions.
Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, quite rightly said, we are dealing with a small section of the community, I am sure we all realise that it is doubtful whether we should find in the community a group of people who more urgently need the help of those who are more fortunately placed than the chronically sick and disabled. Many of them are cut off day after day, week after week, month after month from the outside world, save for an occasional visit from a friend or a relative who pops in and pops out with great speed. Many of them never have another face in the room; many of them never hear another voice in the room. But this Act could end that situation for a large majority of them. I hope that the Government will see their way clear, at a fairly early date, to find out what local authorities are doing, so that we can have some measure of those local authorities who are not proceeding in the matter at all.
In my discussion with certain directors of social welfare as to why the scheme is getting off the ground so slowly, various reasons have been given to me. They talk about the cost involved—and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has dealt effectively with that matter. They have complained—if " complained " is the right word—about the additional work in which it will involve the local authority, and of the increase in staff, which again means money. Several of them have complained that it has come on top of the implementation of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. I hope that the Government will take steps to impress on local authorities that they have this statutory obligation under the Act to provide certain specific services for the chronically sick and disabled.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for spelling out what the Government are prepared to do in terms of money. I think it is so important that I am tempted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether he could see his way clear to cross the t's and dot the i's on

1179
what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, because I think the Money Resolution by which Parliament gave financial backing to the implementation of Section 2 of the Act needs to be spelt out very clearly and precisely. I think it is necessary to tell local authorities—and from that point of view the community—that there can be no saving of public money by failing to provide adequate local services for the chronically sick and disabled: in fact, it may well prove to be a money-saver, because if this Act is implemented, as the last Government felt and this Government feel that it should be, it may make a good many disabled people less dependent on institutions and institutional living. It is the responsibility of the Government to see that their enactments are properly carried out, and again I ask them to be watchful of this matter.
There are many reasons why local authorities should be asked for progress reports at regular intervals, and I think there are reasons for the Government making certain that any financial support given under the Money Resolution is used for the purpose for which it is given, and not, as has happened in the past, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, knows only too well, in order to keep the rate down. I do not know how it is possible to ensure this, but I ask the Government to see that money given to local authorities to help the chronically sick and disabled is used in that direction only and that none of it is whittled away in other directions.
4.20 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, may I first of all thank my noble friend Lord Ingleby for giving us this chance to consider how effective this Act has been during its first year of life. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ash-bourne, on his very interesting maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pesten, has spoken ably about Sections 1 and 2 and I shall confine myself to saying just a couple of things about the area in which I live. An assessment has been made to determine the sort of numbers involved based on the population of Berkshire in the light of the Government Social Survey, and the Director of Social Services feels that the problem
1180
is not going to be as great as some people seem to fear. He does, however, foresee a serious situation arising in a few years' time with regard to another matter which is worth mentioning here as this Act includes the mentally handicapped.
The problem he foresees is that of mentally handicapped people living at home who, thanks to medical science, will now outlive their parents. There will soon be a great need for hospitals for these people, many of whom can go out to work but who need someone to help them with the daily running of their lives. That is for the future. There is of course at this very moment a tremendous need for hostels for the physically disabled who go out to work—both for the completely independent and for those who need a certain amount of help.
I should like to make one point about the means test. This varies from area to area, but the underlying principle is the same. In Berkshire it applies only to such things as televisions and telephones and to adaptations costing over £100. Some rather complicated calculations are involved, but one point is quite clear. It is stated that if the person has assets of more than £600, then no grant should be given to him by the county council except in special circumstances. This sum seems to me unrealistic and to be out of touch with the cost of living these days, particularly when one remembers that life for the disabled is inevitably more expensive and their employment situation much more precarious. Surely it is time to change from a poverty-orientated means test to one based on the needs of the person being considered.
The Director of Social Services had, I thought, a good plan for spreading information about the welfare services available. This was to send out a booklet with the rate demand, which would ensure that every household received a copy. He also felt very strongly that the disabled should be helped to help themselves, by giving all the information possible about the most suitable equipment available. It is indeed vital that the person is given the right type of equipment for his particular need. The voluntary organisations are helping very much to achieve this. Noble Lords have already mentioned the Disabled Living Foundation's information service; and

1181
there is also the mobile exhibition run by the Spastics' Society. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord the Minister say that the whole question of aids and equipment is under review.
One Amendment relating to information which was very strongly supported by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was a new clause calling for better information to prescribers. It was withdrawn only when the Minister gave firm assurances that the Department was considering the best ways of disseminating information. Has the situation changed since those assurances were given? There seems to have been a slight improvement, although I am told that welfare workers and the disabled themselves are still occasionally told that a particular item of equipment is not available through the National Health Service, when in fact it is. Some items not previously listed now appear in the Handbook of Wheelchairs and Hand-Propelled Tricycles, but two of these really need to be illustrated; namely, the Talley alternating pressure pad and the ballbearing armrests. Incidentally, the latter are described in a most discouraging way which would deter most people from prescribing them. There have been no changes in the Handbook of Motor and Electric Tricycles. The Epic is still the only powered wheelchair featured, although several other types are available through the National Health Service which are more suitable for some people. They are indeed prescribed by those who know about them but the point is that too few people do know about them.
Very few people appear to realise that since 1966 the Department of Health has agreed to make Possum equipment available through the National Health Service. Possum can be operated simply by sucking and puffing, or indeed by any residual movement the user possesses, and has helped extremely disabled people, who would otherwise have been totally incapacitated, to communicate with those around them, to gain some degree of independence, and in many cases to do a worthwhile job. The South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has recently circularised general practitioners in its area with information about Possum. It would be
1182
an excellent plan if other Hospital Boards or the Department of Health would follow this example.
Information is also the subject of Section 22, which calls for an annual report on research and development on equipment that might benefit the disabled. When the Joint Under-Secretary of State introduced this clause in its new form in another place he expressed the hope that it would include information from abroad and from voluntary organisations where-ever possible. I certainly hope that this report will not be as threadbare of information as the Handbook to Prescribers; that it will indeed contain information from abroad, and from fields other than those specifically concerned with helping the disabled.
Simple technology, if applied with imagination and thought, can answer many of the needs of the disabled. New materials will mean that aids such as calipers can be lighter and more streamlined as well as stronger. So I hope the report will take into account work going on at places such as the bio-engineering workshop at the Royal National Orthopædie Hospital at Stanmore, and the Bath Institute of Medical Engineering, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ingleby, where doctors, engineers and technologists co-operate to bring a multidisciplinary approach to problems. We must remember that the report is to include any equipment that might improve mobility. Anything which might lead to a solution of the mobility problems of the more severely disabled should be followed up. Unless something is found soon, the more severely affected thalidomide children will join the ranks of disabled passengers. But that is for the future. What about the present? Has the mobility situation improved over this past year? One section of the Act which was particularly welcome was Section 21 (the new badge scheme) because it gave help for the first time to those too disabled to drive themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, said he gathered that it was to be implemented very shortly. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister who is to wind up for the Government exactly when this will be.
I also want to ask the noble Lord to explain the Government's attitude to the use of powered wheelchairs out of

1183
doors. Some models may not be entirely suitable for use on pavements, but several types issued by the Department of Health are suitable for careful limited outdoor use. Every disabled person receiving a powered wheelchair from the Department has to sign an agreement that it is for indoor use. Before the Act was passed, it was of course illegal to use these chairs on pavements, but the Department used to interpret the conditions of supply liberally to include " within the curtilage of the residence "—that is to say, in the garden. Under Section 20, it is now legal to take them on pavements. Some models issued by the Department may not be completely suitable for this; but why, if the Department allows their use in the garden only, does it not say so, rather than getting the user to sign the " indoor use " agreement? The user also has to agree to surrender the chair immediately if instructed to do so by the Ministry. As a member of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. I know that this situation has distressed many people who hoped to gain a little more freedom once this Act was passed. One is left wondering why, if these chairs are unsuitable for use on pavements, the Department does not issue ones that arc suitable.
Many Amendments relating to mobility were withdrawn following assurances that the vehicle service was to be thoroughly reviewed. What has happened since these promises were made? Subsequent Answers in another place indicated that the Department still lacked statistics, but now, with the publication of the Government Social Survey, we can look forward to a thorough review. Results of previous reviews have never been published, but I certainly hope that this one will be. The Joint Committee on Mobility have firm views on what this review should be like. They hope, first, that it will be thorough and based on sound statistics from the Survey; secondly, that it will assess the needs of the disabled passenger as well as the disabled driver; thirdly, that it will take account of the family responsibilities of the disabled, and their medical and social needs; fourthly, that it will take account of where they live and what they earn and how disabled they are; fifthly, that it will include a costed analysis of alter-
1184
native schemes, including a mobility grant scheme, for helping the disabled with their outdoor mobility. Surely a mobility grant scheme would solve all these problems, give the individual disabled person a choice, and avoid the costly administrative overheads involved in running a vehicle and repair service.
So the fact is that there has been as yet no change in the vehicle situation. Those who are sufficiently disabled to qualify for a three-wheeler, but too disabled to drive themselves, are still without any financial help and still paying vehicle excise duty. I should like to point out that there is an opportunity now, in another place, to give some help to these people, for there is a chance that Section 11 of the 1964 Finance Act can be amended to provide exemption from vehicle excise duty for these disabled passengers. It seems to me ridiculous that a person should be excluded from any outdoor mobility help merely because he is more severely disabled than others. Surely this state of affairs cannot last much longer? I certainly hope it will not.
There has been no change in the position of the disabled mother. She must still travel alone without her children; she cannot even take them to the doctor or the dentist; she has to leave young children alone in the house while she goes shopping. The children, the marriage, the entire family suffer. Surely the invalid vehicle service should no longer be based on the concept of " an extension to an artificial limb ", as it has been termed by the Minister in another place, and even more strangely on the requisite of our ability to drive. Surely it is now time to approach the service in terms of providing mobility both for the disabled themselves and for their friends and families—and providing it irrespective of whether or not the disabled themselves are too disabled to drive. My Lords, it is not much use providing the disabled person with an extension to an artificial limb if in the process you amputate the disabled person from his family, and in turn amputate the family from society as a whole. If people are isolated from the community they cannot develop to their full potential, and until they do this they cannot give of their best.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I venture to intervene briefly in this debate, not because I can lay claim 'to 'the specialist knowledge or experience of some other noble Lords who have already spoken, but perhaps because (the welfare of chronically sick and disabled persons is a pant of the day-to-day ministry of clergy and ministers up and down the country. Moreover, in an increasing number of places it is, I believe, seen by members of the Churches and other voluntary bodies as a rewarding field of personal service. Many such people were greatly heartened by the passing into law a year ago of an Act which seemed to be in line with the current development in social policy of making the neds of the individual the paramount consideration. The consequences of such a policy are to try to adapt services to meet the needs of individuals and to promote local and personal services wherever possible, reserving institutional care for cases where there really is no alternative.
Another way in which I think the 1970 Act encouraged many people was that it was made clear (that the services to be supplied were to be an entitlement by right of citizenship and in no sense a charitable dispensation. Therefore I think it was to be expected that the passing of the Act would raise 'hopes that in those areas where the provision of facilities had been patchy or wanting, to say the least, there would be a fairly swift improvement. We here realise 'that there is always bound to be a considerable time lag, even when notice has been given of an appointed day, but I do not think we should he 'surprised that there are reports of perplexity and disappointment, where individuals seeking information about the provisions of 'the Act have not only been refused it but have been given no reason for the refusal. I welcome the Minister's announcement this afternoon about an information leaflet, and I hope this will be widely distributed.
My Lords, many social service departments find it 'hard enough to cope with those who ask for their help, without seeking out others who may have similar needs but who, for one reason or another, have not yet asked for help. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to the obligations under Section 1 of the Act
1186
which will lie upon local authorities in the near future, and some of the difficulties that may confront them in fulfilling the particular responsibility of making a survey and of making information available to all those concerned. If the task of making such a survey and of providing the information of the facilities available is beyond the resources of the existing staff of a social service department, and if it is found quite impossible to increase that staff sufficiently soon to get the survey under way, surely here is another opportunity for a partnership between voluntary and statutory bodies.
I happen to have spent 12 hours on Sunday in a group of parishes where there is a highly organised and well supported scheme for providing voluntary social service of many kinds. A large number of volunteers are involved, under trained leadership, and I was told that with the possible help of some social work students it would be quite possible for the necessary survey to be made in that community by volunteers, and that within that community there already exist the necessary channels whereby information could be conveyed to all those for whom it was intended.
An imaginative use of volunteers under good leadership would only involve a local authority in the essential organising and administrative supervision. The partnership of voluntary and statutory bodies in the service of the community is a feature of our national life of which we are justly proud. The full and speedy implementation of this Act will, I believe, only come about if there is such a partnership and if it is allowed to grow and is firmly based on mutual respect and mutual understanding of the role of each partner. It is possible for a voluntary organisation to be taken advantage of, just as it is for statutory provision to be neglected. Respect and understanding will only be assured if there is the fullest possible co-operation between all concerned. I would venture to hope that the Government, in seeking to ensure that the will of Parliament is fulfilled in respect of the welfare of chronically sick and disabled people, will do everything they can to encourage statutory and voluntary bodies to work closely together. Neither can do all that is required unaided. Both together could do so much more than is being done now.
4.39 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I think your Lordships would agree that not every Act works exactly as Parliament lays down. An Act is not necessarily the worse for that, and in this case I think we have an instance where the Act has been extremely valuable propaganda and in that way has already proved most effective. I personally have found greatly increased interest and awareness among the general public. As has been said already, this is a happy reunion on the anniversary of the passing of the Act, and I am sure your Lordships will envy the company I keep on these occasions. I am delighted, too, to welcome my noble friend who made such an excellent maiden speech, and to emphasise that this whole matter is far from what in modern jargon is known as a " closed shop ". After all, it is a matter which can affect everybody, and we are all delighted when some new person takes an interest in the subject.
I agree that the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has revealed an enormous problem. Three million people, excluding under-16s and the very elderly, are seriously impaired in this country. So I do not think I can quite accept the view expressed this afternoon that we are talking of only a small section of the community: I am afraid that it is too large a section, and unfortunately it is an increasing section. Too many of these people are kept for too long in hospital. There are three points that I want to make about the hospital service. The first is that it is bad for people to be institutionalised. Referring again to your Lordships' recent debates, I do not think I need explain the symptoms and the effects of over-institutionalisation. All I need say, having been here on several occasions late into the night, is that an excess of this numbs the senses and saps the fibre.
The second point I would make on hospitals is that there is, as your Lordships know, a chronic shortage of nurses, not only in this country but in the rest of the world; and this shortage will get worse unless something is done to improve the conditions in which they work. A famous national hospital well known to all of us, and I expect to most of your Lordships, the Stoke Mandeville Hospital, tell me that, because of lack of
1188
staff, two wards have been closed for over a year. This is a very serious situation in a hospital that is known world-wide, and I am sure that it is not the only one affected in this way.
My third point on hospitals is that the average cost, apparently, of keeping a patient in a National Health Service hospital is £2,839 per annum—a large sum by any standards. This leads me to suggest that the provisions of Section 2 of this Act are vital in an attempt to combat these three factors. Apparently many local authorities are concerned as we have heard this afternoon, that the cost of providing services will represent a substantial burden on the rates. But surely through the payment of rate support grant the greater part of the expenditure will fall on the Central Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he said that wherever the money comes from there is no overall saving of public money in failing to implement Section 2. Saving small amounts of ratepayers' money wastes far more taxpayers' money.
Before I leave the subject of hospitals, I would just make an observation which I heard argued effectively the other day by a well-known former Minister of Health, Mr. Enoch Powell, who maintained that the central organisation leaves much to be desired and that the whole system of hospitals should be examined. This is not the time or place to do that, but I believe that it would be a well worthwhile exercise. I should like to see the expenditure on hospitals and on Section 2 of this Act come out of the same pocket, because in that way people would get a much clearer picture and be able to understand that saving is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I should like to express my appreciation of a campaign run by the People Sunday newspaper, which did a very good job of publicising this Act and trying to get it implemented. Its present impression, with which I would agree, is that on the whole local authorities are doing their best, but some of its readers have been told by the local authorities that there are no funds to deal with their requests. Surely, again because of the rate support grant, this cannot be true. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he said that a further clear

1189
directive is needed from the top to the local authorities.
I agree with what has been said about the importance of Section 1. I should have liked it to come into force before October, but now that the date is fixed I quite accent it. But I must stress that it is vital that this date is adhered to, because if for some reason there is some further putting off I think it will be the greatest disappointment and tragedy to a whole lot of disabled people to whom hope is a real and important factor. I realise that the date could not he fixed before October because of the appointment of the local directors of social services, and I am glad to say that in my part of the world, the Midlands, Leicestershire, there is progress. The director of social services there has met representatives of all the voluntary organisations and they are being asked to supply names to the register.
We must not underestimate the enthusiasm, the experience and the resourcefulness of the voluntary organisations—and indeed they were the driving force behind this Act. Now that some services formerly provided by them come under Section 2 of the Act, I hope that they will be able to take on new roles; for example, as representatives on the various committees, spurring local authorities to discharge their obligations, and acting individually in their own spheres to try to get the principle of the access sections accepted.
That leads me on to the question of access. Here I should like to address a few remarks to my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment. I am always rather impressed by that rather long title, and I tried to think of a suitable abbreviation the other day. Bearing in mind his interests outside this House, I thought possibly the one that fitted him best was, " the noble Lord, the Lord of Creation ". I have mentioned the value of propaganda, and I think that this is particularly effective in the question of access. In my view there is no overall pattern emerging, but everyone is doing bits and pieces, and the climate is definitely changing. Certainly there have been great improvements in the Houses of Parliament. The British Museum extension provides access, and
1190
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is very much aware of the problem. Public conveniences are starting to live up to their names. Not being able to see the St. Leger, I complained about a race-course. Now I can report that the race-course concerned has made a considerable improvement.
More doubtful are some rather odd regulations at other places. I know that at Earl's Court many people have been prevented from seeing various exhibitions and shows by some regulations which, though they may be valid, were not fully understood by the people who were waiting to see those shows. I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford may be able to explain the position in this and other cases. Theatres and cinemas also seem to have strange regulations. When one goes there one has to sit in one of the seats, and not in one of the gangways, and there is no doubt that should there be a tire the people who had to leave by wheelchair would be the last to get out. It is not a very enviable situation.
Places of employment are not covered by the Act, which I always thought was an omission; and of course the whole question of employment is a vital issue, as my noble friend Lord Ingleby has said. My final thought on this question of access to buildings is that no planning permission for public buildings should be granted unless access for the disabled is provided. I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford may be able to confirm that this is a proposition which can be carried out.
During the discussions on the Bill before it became an Act I mentioned the question of access to public transport, and during the Committee stage I withdrew an Amendment after an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who was replying for the Government, that he would issue a circular to operators and manufacturers of public transport equipment. I am hoping that the assurance given then will be taken over by my noble friend Lord Sandford because, after those opening shots last year, I think it is now time for increased pressure. I know that there are difficulties. But I am hoping that, after what I read this morning was the profit made by British Railways, they will use some of it to give me a little better transport than I enjoy in the guards' vans at present. After

1191
all, even if the figures for the nationalised industries cannot be interpreted as profit, as taxpayers we all subscribe to them, and I believe that public transport as a public service should be available to all. Before I leave that aspect, may I say that I think I was misconstrued last time when I complained about London taxis? I in no way meant to complain about the personnel involved in any form of public transport: I find them extremely helpful. It is the tackle they are compelled to use that causes me a great deal more doubt.
My noble friend Lady Darcy has dealt very adequately with the question of vehicles, and I can only support very strongly all that she said. I do not want to argue the merits and the faults of three-wheeled vehicles versus four-wheeled vehicles, but many people, including Mr. Graham Hill, with whom I have discussed this subject fairly often, believe that the three-wheeled vehicle is inherently dangerous; and I can well see that. I am not fortunate enough to drive a car, but I should hate to come 90 or 100 miles down the M.1 to your Lordships' House in a three-wheeled vehicle, because it simply would not be stable enough to complete the trip. My noble friend beside me says that I should not be allowed on the M.1, so there again there is a definite restriction. We feel that it is a relic of a Victorian approach, and the sooner the situation changes the better. We also feel that the four-wheeled vehicle would open up great opportunities for disabled passengers who are discriminated against at the moment in a most unfortunate way. If anyone thinks that severely handicapped people cannot work, and therefore do not really need transport, I wish they would meet Mr. Peter Large, who is here this afternoon. He is an excellent administrator, was the greatest help to all of us in our speeches on the Bill, and is an inspiration to a great many others.
My Lords, I should like to finish by echoing what has been said about the car badge scheme. I hope that this will be universally recognised by every authority in the country, and not only in certain areas. I also hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. I
1192
am grateful to your Lordships for all the interest you have shown in this subject during the last year or more, and I only hope that this great interest will be reflected by further positive action on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
4.56 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, when I made a speech on the Second Reading of this Act last summer, I referred to the fact that I had thought for some time it would be a very good plan if the Government provided an allowance for people to take care of their elderly relatives in their own homes. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Bill came before us not very long after that, to find that part of the Bill provided for this. I do not claim for myself any credit for this, because I am sure that it was decided long before I made my speech. But I was extremely pleased to see it happen, and was more complimented still when Her Majesty's Government invited me to become Chairman of the Attendance Allowance Board, which post I was very pleased to accept.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk of the progress which has been made in the provision of schemes for the care of the younger chronic sick and disabled person, because this is what they require. They are extremely difficult matters to work out properly, because the number of young chronic sick is not very large and it is very difficult to arrange that they should be somewhere near their friends and family. So it does the Government a great deal of credit that 455 extra beds should have been provided for those people in this comparatively short time. From another point of view it relieves some of the pressure on the geriatric services in the country.
Here I should like to say a word about the meaning of the word " geriatric " which has gone badly wrong in the last few years. When the geriatric services first began, immediately after the war, they were in places where people went for active treatment and not for custodial care. They have now come to be taken to mean what were the old chronic

1193
sick wards of the Poor Law, where people lay quite neglected and uncared for. I only want to make that mild protest to try to get the record put right, because geriatric services should mean active places where acute medicine is practised and where people get back on their feet, and not places where people are uncared for till they die.
One point which I raised on Second Reading was the question of mobile physiotherapy, so that active treatment could be given in their homes to patients who, for some reason or another could not go to a department of a hospital. That could be quite an important factor, because it might prevent people becoming disabled and chronically sick. I know that there are a certain number of arguments against that, the biggest one being that the services of the physiotherapists are rather valuable and it is better that they should be concentrated in the hospitals. The noble Baroness Lady Serota, who then replied for the Government, said that a working group was reviewing the work of the remedial professions with this object in view. When he comes to reply perhaps the noble Lord could tell me whether anything has come out of that.
Another point which I think is of great importance was brought to my attention first of all by a disabled person himself; namely, that when people become acutely disabled—say, for example, paraplegia following a fractured spine—they should be told immediately what services are going to be available for them when they recover. They should be encouraged to think that they are going to recover and are going to go back to work, and they should be told that there will be quite a lot of help given them from that point of view. Here, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for what he has said about the facilities and services available to the disabled. I am quite certain that more of this needs to be told, and more of this kind of information needs to be spread about the country. Finally, I think it is extremely important that when patients are discharged from hospital a note of their present condition should accompany them whether they are going back to the care of their doctor or into their own care
1194
at home. It is important that there should be some kind of continuity in this respect.
In this large report which I see in front of the noble Lord who is to reply there are several categories of disability mentioned, and I should like to come down to a very low one, Category 16, which includes the mentally senile. There, I think it is indicated that more of these people are being kept at home who, because of the enormous strain they impose upon their relatives and their friends owing to their disability, should go into some kind of hospital. Surely one of the troubles there has been the fault of the mental hospitals, which since the passage of the Mental Health Act, 1959, have steadfastly refused to accept these long-term disabled elderly folk whose correct place is in such hospitals. So I wonder whether a certain amount of pressure could be brought to bear on the mental hospitals to make them wake up to their responsibilities and take more of these people. It was comparatively simple before the passage of the Mental Health Act to get these patients transferred; now it is very difficult.
My Lords, we have been told that Section 1 of the Act comes into force on October 1. I hope that in addition to getting a register prepared there will be done something which I think is even more important that that: that wide publicity will be given to the facilities that are available at the present time from the local authorities and from the voluntary organisations for all disabled persons. The Minister mentioned that a leaflet would be published. I trust that that will he a really full document and that it will be widely distributed so that nobody can plead ignorance of what facilities are available. There is one suggestion I should like to make to the noble Lord before I sit down. When people are badly disabled—for example, patients with paraplegia, to whom I referred—they receive constant demands from various bodies, quite properly, for medical certificates. A case in point—and one always comes back to individual patients—is of a young man I know who has a fractured spine. He is a paraplegic, but he is a very young and determined man. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, met him and talked to

1195
him one day, with me. What he suggested was that it should be possible for such people to be given a book of medical certificates so that they do not need to keep returning to the hospital or to their doctor for another certificate. If a book of certificates could be issued from which they could extract one when required, to show it to the appropriate authority, this would certainly save a great deal of trouble for them, particularly if they are in full-time employment and have to travel long distances to get their certificates.
Finally, I agree entirely with what has been said about how important it is that voluntary services and the local authority official services should work closely together. That, I am sure, is the only way we can get a really proper working of this Act of Parliament. It is not going to be an easy one to implement fully as it is, but it cannot be done at all if the voluntary bodies are not brought in on a big scale right from the start.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, as chairman of the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases, I should like to address myself particularly to Section 19 of the Act; but before I come to that I should like to say how delighted I am that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has decided to break a long silence to speak in support of the proper implementation of this very important Act. On this question of research, and referring to Section 22 of the Act, that section requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament each year—
" a report on the progress made during that year in research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled persons, and in particular such equipment that might improve the indoor and outdoor mobility of such persons ".
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to expand on the question of medical research in this context of the disabled rather more widely than is indicated in that particular section of the Act. I would submit, without in any way detracting from the great importance of the other provisions of the Act, that research into the prevention and cure of any form
1196
of disabling or crippling diseases is all-important on the basis that, always, prevention is better than cure.
As your Lordships know, the main official supporters of medical research in this country are the Medical Research Council and the University Grants Committee, and both are dependent on public finance. If one looks at the sums which have been spent by these two bodies over the last few years, one could at first glance come to the conclusion that a considerable increase in the expenditure was being made. Arithmetically, that is so; but then one has to take into account two factors: first, the effect of inflation. of rising costs in terms of salaries and wages and accommodation; and, secondly, what is not so generally known, rising costs in the provision of the equipment and other facilities needed for research.
I do not think it is too remote from practical reality to say that the further research proceeds, the more costly it becomes. Research leads to research and. although in some cases research leads to conclusions and practical results which reduce the cost of the services to be rendered or the research to be carried out, in other cases it increases these costs and so it is an escalating factor. This, I think, is not always fully realised. If we are to provide those people who are devotedly working in carrying out research into the prevention and cure of crippling diseases, those two factors must be recognised and fully accepted, and this is to some extent paradoxical. In other words, the more research you do, the more costly the future research becomes, and you discover ways and means whereby if the finance is available you can continue the research and produce definite and practical results.
As your Lordships will know, the allocation of funds for medical research is done, as I said just now, through the Medical Research Council or the University Grants Committee. On this aspect of medical research the University Grants Committee has, on my advice, suffered more than our M.R.C. The University Grants Committee is, of course. concerned primarily with teaching, more than with research, but I am sure that your Lordships who look closely at this subject will agree that a university department is an appropriate place for research. It is appropriate because, so to

1197
speak, the academic brains are available in the university circle. It is also appropriate because there you have the young men and women who will be interested in going beyond the normal practice and will adapt themselves and prepare themselves for being effective research workers in the future.
With some pride and some diffidence I should like to tell your Lordships what has been done by the National Fund in the way of establishing Research Chairs and so on in the various universities and other establishments over the last ten years or so. In the University of London, Chairs have been established in virology; at the Royal Post-Graduate College of the Medical School at Hammersmith in orthopædics; at the University of London, in neurology; at the Institute of Psychiatry, which is part of the University of London and, jointly. the Muscular Dystrophy Group and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. in neuro-chemistry; at the Institute of the University of London, and in Oxford two research Chairs, one in pædiatrics and the other in clinical neurology; and. finally, in the West Indies, a Chair of rehabilitation in orthopædics at the University of the West Indies. I claim, on behalf of the voluntary organisation of which I have the honour to be the chairman, that this is a formidable achievement: but it hardly does more than attack the fringes of the problem. There is an immense amount to be done in these fields of medical research.
In this country, we have a tradition of successful medical research. There are names like Hunter, Jenner. Lister and Alexander Fleming to testify to this. In the United States of America, President Nixon has recently announced massive financial support from the Government for cancer research. While not for a moment do I believe that money necessarily means good research, I would maintain that there is a strong case for the Government to take a fresh look at the priorities it accords to medical research, particularly in this field of the prevention and cure of crippling and disabling diseases, when making future allocations to the University Grants Committee and the Medical Research Council. This not only has a moral and a social application, but, I would submit, has an economic application as well,
1198
because the more that you can prevent disablement from occurring, the more you can enable disabled or crippled people to lead a useful and practical life and, the more you will turn them from being users of the taxpayers' money into contributors to the rates and taxes. Therefore I should have thought that this would have a direct appeal to the economic aspects of running this country. Briefly, I would suggest that in this field of medical research there is a strong case, both on social and moral grounds and on economic grounds, for Her Majesty's Government to review, and review favourably, the allocation of public funds made to research for the future benefit of those people who may be born disabled or, by accident or mischance, become disabled during the course of their lives.
5.17 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords. I should like to thank the noble Viscount for enabling us once more to focus attention on the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. Age and disablement have always been with us, and perhaps it is because of their inevitability and familiarity that those in authority are slow to grapple with these social problems. From what we have heard to-day, it is quite clear that authorities throughout the country are regarding this matter as not one of great urgency. We have to remember that we are living in an era when healthy, clamourous youth demands priority, and it is not surprising that age cannot compete in news value with the demands of youth.
We have heard to-day a great deal about research and hospitals, and I believe that our young medical students and our young nurses who, quite understandably, are part of this wonderful youth saga, must be reminded that as our expectation of life increases so does the age of patients admitted to hospital increase and that the sharp demarcation between the acutely ill and those admitted to geriatric wards is becoming dim.
I would invite those who are allied to the medical world to read this week's first leader in the British Medical Journal. This article on the first report of the Hospital Advisory Service makes some observations that are appropriate to this debate. I should like to put it on record,

1199
because I am sure that all those who have spoken will be encouraged to find that the journal of the medical profession is giving great attention to the two debates, this one and the one that was held in another place last week. It says this:
" The trouble is that the community, through the successive Governments that have represented it, and the great majority of individuals generally turn away from the unpleasant reality hoping that someone else will remedy it at no extra cost. It is all too easy to imagine that the appointment of a commissioner, the provision of an advisory service, the devising of a new administration are an adequate substitute for the human will to get things done."
I think it is common to all the speakers to-day that we are desirous of seeing things done. It goes on to say:
"Nor is it only public indifference that is to blame for the neglect accorded to old and incontinent patients and the mentally handicapped. The medical profession likewise shows too little concern for the unfashionable specialities.
" The Director of the Hospital Advisory Service says he has heard comments from senior staff to the effect that the services for the elderly should take second place; that the needs of the chronically sick are far less important than the needs of the acute patient, and that less money and effort need be spent on this part of the service."
If the medical profession treat the aged, the disabled and the chronically sick as second-class patients, is it surprising that we find the local authorities reluctant to implement the Act? Undoubtedly, there are some callous authorities who will be delighted to learn that there is really no urgency.
It is this failure to relate the provisions of the Act to the needs of the chronically sick and disabled which calls for criticism to-day. For that reason, if I had to choose the staff of a local authority for this work, I would put the appointment of a dedicated, energetic public relations officer as the first in my order of priorities. But however excellent the P.R.O., he or she is hampered unless all to whom the Act applies can be identified.
We were told on Second Reading that registration would make heavy demands on the staff; but without registration this Act is only partially effective. If the human will is there, the staff have the means whereby they can secure a great deal of information. Separate registers are already kept for the blind, the deaf,
1200
and such other disabled as may be prescribed by the Ministry of Health. Compulsory records are kept of the chronically sick and disabled by every general practitioner in the country. Consequently, the necessary information is already available; and it was satisfactory to learn in another place on Friday that the Minister proposes to demand more energetic action. But if there is no compulsory registration, the inefficient authorities will be provided with a loophole through which once again they can escape their responsibilities. We must all realise that during the last year since the Act has been on the Statute Book, some authorities have adopted a callous attitude. We have already had examples of the failure to make exhaustive inquiries, when some authorities claim that they have only 1·4 disabled per thousand of their population and others claim that they have 10 per thousand.
Unless we insist that registration shall be compulsory, an incomplete register will be attributed by the local authorities to the refusal of the individual to be registered. In fact it is more likely to be due to the negative attitude that stems from bitterness and suspicion which are often the companions of loneliness and disability. These are the people who have over the years assumed a hard shell. They have been lonely. They have not been approached; they have a sense of isolation, as the noble Viscount has said. Of course they are not receptive to some stranger who goes to them and says, " We want to put your name on the register." These people need a special approach. Within that shell, they are longing for sympathy, for care, for understanding and appreciation.
My Lords, I suggest that the advice of the general practitioners should be sought. The general practitioner is seldom rejected by the patient, because he has been known for years by the disabled and the aged. Therefore they have faith in him. I feel that if the local authorities secure his co-operation, and that of the appropriate welfare and social workers, there will be little difficulty in securing a comprehensive register. After all, a doctor who attends a patient in some serious illness does not believe in saving a man from drowning and then leaving him on the bank of the river: he is there all the

1201
time. He has been trained to be compassionate. The doctor knows—his experience has taught him—that often a patient who is disabled or who is aged and has arthritis—which malady, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare has rightly said is an absolute curse of this country—will manage to get to the surgery, will manage to get to the chemist and get the prescription; will then get home and manage even to climb the stairs. But as the years pass they cannot manage this and they have to depend upon a child or some other person to fetch their shopping. From that moment, these individuals gradually become recluses. It may be said, " What about the neighbours? " Well, my Lords, in congested cities like London the neighbours now and then report to each other that they have not seen so-and-so for some time. A busy doctor, with a packed waiting room, also probably feels that he has not seen so-and-so, but thinks that perhaps he or she has moved elsewhere. And so the person becomes forgotten.
These " forgotten " people may prove unco-operative but they are the very ones who should be registered, because they are immobile and consequently out of touch with available help. This is the very core of the problem. To give it up by saying, " We knocked at the door, but somebody called out from behind it saying, ' Go way!'" means that the callous authority will write on their register: " No answer; they did not want us." But if that individual is approached by the doctor or the doctor's assistant, or by means of a message coming through the door from a member of one of the professions ancillary to medicine—perhaps the physiotherapist—saying: "I have come from the doctor with a special message for you ", and asking for the individual's co-operation, the attitude of these people will be entirely different.
I confess that I found it very difficult, when I read the debate on Friday, to understand some of the things that were said. It indicated to me, for instance, that those in authority, in high places, arc completely out of touch. When I read that the Minister was advised of the introduction of chemical closets for the disabled and that he was prepared to get 1,000, in the nature of an experiment
1202
which needed testing out, I was astonished. My Lords, progressive authorities have for many years provided chemical closets. I saw them years ago and I thought that I must have made a mistake when I read the speech. I could even remember the colour; it was a pink and a blue one that was shown to me. I telephoned to the Hornsey Old People's Welfare Council and said, "Did not I come to you a few years ago and discuss the whole question of chemical closets; and did you not say that you had introduced them, and actually showed them to me?" The organiser said, " Yes. I think we started five or six years ago with them, and they are excellent." Yet we were told in another place on Friday that the Minister will buy 1,000 of them with a view to testing them out. As they have been used for this purpose for many years, I think this is a small indication of the lack of initiative of those authorities who have failed to use this very important addition to the furniture for an old person. And I do not think there is anything for noble Lords to laugh about, even about closets.
One cannot over-emphasise the importance of domiciliary assistance. I give pride of place to the domestic help. I was glad to see that, again on Friday, the Minister appreciated her value. He said that if he had a magic wand and was granted one wish he would implement her activities. The Minister has a magic wand; he is the only one who has a magic wand. If he wishes he can transform the Cinderella of the health services into an adequately rewarded ministering angel. It is no good the Minister telling us as he has done, what great value he attaches to the home help; we want to know what he is prepared to pay her. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he winds up the debate, will say that, while we have all paid lip service to the home help, who is not corning forward to do this work—dirty, unpleasant and sometimes repulsive work—because she is paid a miserable few shillings an hour, the Government are prepared to do something more to help her. I want to know whether they are going to say that the home help is a key figure who will be helped. By helping her, of course, the Government would not only be improving her status, which is very important for her, but at the same time would be helping the chronically

1203
sick and disabled who are dependent not only on her care but on her cheerful company.
5.33 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has been so broadly drawn that there is a great deal of confusion generally as to how the Act can be used to help the mentally ill. Several questions have been asked about this in another place, but I feel that a more precise definition by the Department is necessary. The mentally handicapped seem to be fairly well covered, and the needs of the old who arc senile, or who are suffering from some mental disability, are also fairly clear. But what plans has the Minister in mind for the much more difficult area of chronic schizophrenia arising in middle age? Also, what about the mentally sick who are chronically disabled? These problems must be faced. It is no use pretending that they do not exist. I should like some information from the noble Lord who is to wind up for the Government as to the Government's intentions with regard to these groups.
Much has been done over the last few years to try to establish smaller units rather than enormous hospitals. This has had varying results, but much information and knowledge of the problems involved have been and will continue to be acquired. There is no doubt that a large number of patients in subnormality hospitals today would be better off in community care hostels or in their own homes under supervision, although I personally feel that there will always remain a group for which this will be impossible. If local authorities could pay more attention to the housing needs of handicapped people, and give them more assistance in their own homes, this would help to ease slightly the appalling overcrowding and understaffing in mental and subnormality hospitals and would also, of course, be a saving of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. The extra money that has been allocated to local authorities for these hospitals, although not enough, will also help to ease the burden. Here I think a word of appreciation would be appropriate for the army of home helps who all do such a magnificent job. I think they could well be better paid. And
1204
of course, I must mention the voluntary workers, on whom the hospitals and social services rely more and more and whose help will become even more necessary as these schemes gather momentum.
Now I should like to say a few words with reference to Section 26 of the Act, which deals with autism. I am sure that most of your Lordships are aware that autism is a condition beginning in early infancy which has now been recognised by experts throughout the world as having a certain clinical unity. The most important of the handicaps in early infantile autism, is a severe impairment in the development of language, affecting both speech and gesture. In the most severe cases there is no understanding or use of spoken or gestured language. When the handicap is less profound comprehension improves with increasing age, and speech develops slowly and with characteristic abnormalities. There is considerable variation in the degree of handicap. but there is inevitably some intellectual retardation which can be severe. All this leads to behaviour disorders which can be very distressing to all concerned.
The National Society for Autistic Children, founded in 1962 by a group of parents who were deeply dissatisfied with the provision then made by the authorities for the education and training of their children, has done much on its own. It has set up its own schools. Five are already opened and three more are expected to open this year. It has organised training courses and information services for parents and professional people, but it is a small group and recognises that it cannot possibly provide a national service. Although the first essential is early diagnosis and assessment of the child's needs, the next essential is advice to the parents on the management and upbringing of their autistic child. Home teachers are already provided for young deaf children, and parents of young spastic children can obtain specific instruction in management at places like the Wolfson Centre. Some similar arrangement is required for the parents of autistic children.
With help, which many families at the moment do not receive, it is possible for the child to be kept at home where it will grow up to be able to enjoy life and remain outside an institution. Most of the schools, training centres and hospitals

1205
available for mentally handicapped children at the moment lack staff, buildings and equipment which would enable them to help autistic children to reach their maximum potential. Huge areas of the country, involving many hundreds of autistic children, have no facilities at all for their help. The South-East is best served with 22 of the 32 educational units available. Special attention also needs to be given to the problems of autistic adolescents who need education and vocational training well beyond the ordinary school-leaving age. I think the reply given on April 6 of this year in another place by the Secretary of State for Social Services to Mr. Driberg was quite inadequate. Nearly all autistic children will remain handicapped throughout their lives, but proper education can help them at the very least to fit into the community and, above all, to find some interest and enjoyment in life. Much has been accomplished, but even more needs to be done.
5.40 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, so much has already been said, and very well said, by others, that I shall be highly selective in the points that I shall make. In the first place, I should like to say something about statistics. My notes are not very complete, but I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who quoted recent statistics which show up such enormous discrepancies between one local authority and another. The discrepancies are so large that without having examined them more carefully—even if I had done so I might have come to no conclusion—it is difficult to say how much they really mean. Surely, the question of identification is extraordinarily important. If, for instance, one local authority has identified only a proportion, say a quarter, a half or even only two-thirds of its disabled population, the amount it spends per individual will accordingly appear to be much larger than it actually is.
Secondly, referring to Section 1 of the Act—and I assure your Lordships that I am not going through the Act section by section—surely the question of information is all important. I was greatly pleased to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that a booklet of information is shortly to appear. I should like to be further assured that it will be kept
1206
up to date. If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would care to add to his remarks I should like to know exactly whom it is intended that this booklet should reach. It is so important that the relevant information should reach, first, the people affected and, of course, their families; and, secondly, the people who have to prescribe the help, equipment and aids of various kinds.
I was impressed by the suggestion, or the statement—again my notes are not sufficiently complete to enable me to identify who made it; it might again have been the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby —that some notice should he sent round with the rates. This seems to me to be a splendid idea. It could be done once a year, or even once in two years. A simple slip of paper could contain a notice calling attention to the aids which could be given to disabled people. The majority of the leaflets would, of course, quickly reach the wastepaper basket having been sent to homes where there were no disabled. But in homes where there were disabled people I am sure that they would be seized upon immediately. Although most of my post goes into the wastepaper basket, I would immediately seize on a leaflet which allowed me to expect a large pension for retired professors of medicine, or something of that kind. When such a publication refers to one's particular problem one reads it.
I was very glad to note that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Disabled Living Foundation. It has a splendid information service at its aids centre in Kensington High Street. Here, my Lords, I have to declare an interest, though not a financial one. I have a small position on this Disabled Living Foundation and I have been interested in it for a good many years. I am dignified by the term of " Adviser " to their music group. The group does notable work in encouraging music among disabled people, choirs and so on, and in devising cunning methods by which people with physical handicaps may use instruments which they would not otherwise be able to play. It is one of the ways, too, in which the disabled can come more into society, and we all acknowledge the importance of that.
It seems to me that if information was periodically supplied to disabled people,

1207
it would move local authorities to be sure that they carried out their duties under Section 2; a point which was made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. Skipping to Section 16, which deals with the placing of disabled people in employment, that is extremely important; and the aid centre of the Disabled Living Foundation shows a number of cunning devices whereby very severely disabled people may do useful work; for instance, in the domestic field, sewing, embroidery, typing, telephony and that kind of occupation. There are, I believe, a number of people running quite lucrative businesses from their beds.
My Lords, I must refer to Section 17 of the Act, though I knew that it would be well dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. It refers to the young chronic sick. I should hate to put priorities on some parts of this Act, because that might mean that less attention would be given to other parts, but if I had to put a priority on a section I think that this would be my priority No. 1. Although doing too little for the disabled is bad enough, and doing nothing at all is even worse, the putting of young chronic sick into wards with geriatric mental patients is really doing extreme harm—and the worst kind of harm, because it is harm to the personality.
The noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, called attention to Section 22 and the question of research. The noble Lord read out the whole of the section, but I should like to read only certain parts of it. It says:
" The Secretary of State shall…lay before Parliament a report on the progress of research and development by or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown."
I was one of those responsible for the passing of this Act, and in retrospect it seems to me that that is a rather inadequate requirement. It is simply to lay before Parliament. It is not said whether Parliament does anything about it when the report is laid. It seems to refer only to research and development carried out by or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown. I suppose that the amount of research actually carried out by a Minister of the Crown would be comparatively small, though he might promote a lot of research, so that limits it to " on behalf of " a Minister of the
1208
Crown. I hope that the report of the research which I think will be due at the end of the year will go a little further than that.
Here, my Lords, I must declare another interest, in that I am vice-president of the Bath Institute for Medical Engineering. I should like to say unashamedly, having declared my interest, what an important institute I think this is. It has certain very notable advantages. One is that its premises are actually in the grounds of St. Martins Hospital. It has doctors and surgeons on its staff who can see the need for the various aids to the disabled which the Institute can produce and can try them out. Medically, of course, Bath has traditionally a large population of people who are disabled in one way or another, particularly with rheumatic diseases. It also has a university, which is noted for its strength in technology and engineering. Thus there is a combination of talents which may not be readily equalled anywhere else. It is doing work, of course, in other fields of medical engineering—for example, in monitoring devices for the concentration of anesthetic vapours—which have no immediate bearing on the disabled. But it has another advantage over some research institutions: that it is ready to take up ideas of other people and looks upon the development of those ideas and making them practical as one of its important duties, when so many research workers are only interested in the ideas which spring from their own heads.
These are the only points that I want to make. I am only too conscious that I have left out large and important fields such as the deaf, the blind, the dyslexic and the autistic, but only because I know that others like the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, have already referred to these and that others who are following will mention them.
I conclude by wondering whether your Lordships would agree with what I have always felt myself—namely, that I would much rather be blind than severely or totally deaf. Blind people have their friends, their social contacts and their conversation. You talk to a blind person as to any other friend. They can listen to music. But the deaf person is isolated. It is a pain to go and see a deaf person and try to shout out some triviality about it being a nice day, which you perhaps

1209
have to repeat four times, and do not make yourself understood. You do not readily go again. I think my view is right.
5.52 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords. I shall not detain your Lordships too long, because we have listened to many excellent speeches and there are many more to come. I have only two points to mention. Before I do so, may I offer my humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for his most excellent and interesting maiden speech?
My two points have already been spoken about and nobody could have spoken better about them than the two speakers who did so. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, spoke on the question of what local authorities are going to do. Like him, I am completely convinced that most local authorities do not consider this matter seriously. We only have to read in Hansard the report of the debate in another place on Friday to see how many bad local authorities we have, how lazy they are and that they do not take kindly to this sort of thing. I think that it will take a great deal from the Secretary of State to force them into putting these requirements into effect and keeping them up to date. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said this in a much better way than I have, so I will not add any more on that aspect.
My other point concerns autism. I should like to support all that my noble friend Lady Loudoun said on this subject. I have had the opportunity of working in a number of psychiatric hospitals for a good many years, so I have seen a certain number of autistic children and young people. In the last ten or twenty years, a new treatment has been discovered and it is extraordinary to see the difference between what is being done to-day and what was being done some years ago.
I have a friend who has an autistic son. He went to school but, of course, he did not go to a school for autistic children. This boy is now 22. He had some fits in adolescence and has deteriorated a good deal since then. He is now in a closed ward in hospital for his aggressive behaviour, but will return to an open group ward once this is brought under control. At the moment
1210
he is on large doses of tranquillisers. I compare him with a little boy I know of 8 or 9 in a hospital in the area where I worked. He is a nice little boy, with a high I.Q., but he is very aggressive. Before he came to us he had been in a big London hospital, where I believe he caused damage amounting to at least £2,000. We had a padded cell built for him and he had to have four nurses, because he had not only damaged everything he could damage but he had hurt himself and could not be allowed with other children. The last time I saw him, about a month or six weeks ago, after he had been seen by a great authority on autistic children who advised certain treatment, he was with three other people in the dining room of the hospital, talking to his nurse. He was not quite intelligible. I could understand only a word or two of what he was saying, but the nurse obviously understood everything he said. This was entirely due to the new treatment which had been prescribed by this expert on autism.
So I should like to say that there is a chance for all autistic children if they arc found and diagnosed at any early stage, are given the proper education and taken to the right places. I would urge on the Government that education authorities should take this question of the training of teachers for autistic children very seriously. It is a specialised subject. There ought to be one teacher for every child. That is almost impossible, but I do not think that units should be of more than five children to a teacher, otherwise the children will not get any benefit.
5.58 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in your Lordships' debate this afternoon. May I first add to those of other noble Lords who have already spoken my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne on his maiden speech. The fact that he has not addressed your Lordships for I think 39 years is I believe your Lordships' loss.
The whole problem of the disabled has never before received so much emphasis as to-day, both in this country and abroad. Valuable as it is in making mandatory so much of what enlightened local authorities have done for the disabled under permissive powers in the past, the

1211
Act is in my opinion devoid of an end product. It does not of itself promote and ensure the means of restoration of a disabled person to a viable place in the economic life of the nation, which is the object of rehabilitation, as I see it.
The philosophy of the British Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, with which I am associated, contains, among others, two phrases which I believe are worthy of attention and which, in the context of to-day, have particular relevance to us in relation to both medicine and employment. They are, first, that
" in medicine there is a duty to preserve and improve physical function and to appraise capacity for work."
In other words, medicine is faced with the task of restoring function. Secondly, placed in the statement as " worthy of attention " is
" in Government there is a duty to retrain lost industrial faculty or to train an alternative faculty."
In a democracy, the State expresses this philosophy through the Government it elects, so it is right that we should impose upon Governments such a duty, especially when the ruling Party claims to care. However, this does not mean that the rest of society can evade action. It must not merely delegate responsibility but participate in it by ensuring that by its own efforts executive responsibility is carried out and leads to achievements. This means that industry, commerce, the trade unions and professional associations have a share in absorbing in gainful employment all those who have been restored by the combined skills of medicine, Government and society. The problem of the disabled in society will, I believe, always he with us, and it is surely for us to sharpen our skills and abilities in order to recognise at any given moment where the most acute problem lies.
One of the greatest problems to be faced is in relation to motivation, if I may use an Americanism; and here one has to decide sooner or later how delicate a balance there is between incentive and disincentive. One must recognise the basic right of those who want to, to enjoy to the maximum the privileges of a worthwhile place in society. Once motivation is right, an investment in rehabili-
1212
tation can be justified. There are two notable problems to be faced. The first concerns the way in which disability affects the efficiency of the physical mechanism, which is a problem for medicine. The second problem is the impact of environmental factors upon that efficiency. And always remember, my Lords, that the longer the delay the less likely is the affected person to get better. Some recent figures from the Department of Social Security show that over 900,000 people were on benefit, and of these over 500,000 have been on benefit for over six months.
The practical definition of rehabilitation might be " the restoration of capacity for normal work or normal wage-earning". When a disabling condition arises, medicine has the problem of discovering how far the efficiency of the mechanism has been impaired, and then of devising the means of restoration to as near normal as possible. Ultimate success, in other words rehabilitation, may be affected one way or another by the impact of subsequent environmental factors. Medicine may find its own success marred by factors in the patient's life, such as social prejudice, poverty, bad housing, lack of opportunity in the economic set-up, even in employment. We should be concerned with the enhancement of residual ability: we should be committed to the prevention of superimposed disability. We must work at the task of providing substitutes for lost function. We must devise complete reorganisation. What is achieved by the patient in social activity is the justification of rehabilitation. An important part of this, namely, vocational training or retraining, is generally accepted; but the employment of the retrained is a problem which is often conditioned by such things as the state of the labour market, the nature and availability of transport and, by no means least, architectural design. These two latter are fit subjects for even more intense study in the engineering fields than they are now receiving.
I ask you to remember this, my Lords: there is no really sound reason, other than prejudice, why an adequately assessed and treated re-abled worker should not be an asset to an expanding country's economy. Perhaps one of the most delightful success stories of fulfilment in this respect is one that was told

1213
by Senator Humphrey, a former Vice-President of the United States. A young woman, severely disabled, had gone through all the phases of rehabilitation. She got her first job and, while still on a comparatively low wage rate, was thrilled to see on her wage slip a small deduction for income tax. At last she was no longer an encumbrance upon society. She was actually a contributor; and her excitement knew no bounds. With increasing skill and efficiency, her pay packet grew larger and by the end of the year she was a leader in a campaign for the abolition of " this intolerable burden of income tax ". Who would say that her rehabilitation was incomplete? Surely she was no longer disabled. In another place last week, Mr. Jack Ashley said, among other things, that the number of disabled people who are unemployed is five times the national average, and it is of paramount importance that the 50 per cent. of British employers who are failing to employ their quota of disabled persons should fulfil their obligations. I agree with that sentiment, but surely it is unenforceable. I shall be interested to see whether my noble friend Lord Sandford comments upon this point when he comes to wind up.
I should like to support wholeheartedly all that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about the Government circular. He has put his finger on a critical spot. When one is dealing with a problem of some 2 million permanently and substantially handicapped people, as we have to-day in this country, I do not believe that the loose wording of the Government circular of August 17, 1970, in which they stated. inter alia, regarding Section 1 of the Act:
" It is not a requirement of the section that authorities should attempt 100 per cent. identification and registration of the handicapped "
is nearly positive enough. Some local authorities are first-class, but others are not. I well remember moving an Amendment during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House to make further education mandatory rather than permissive. so far as local authorities were concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who was then replying for the Government, begged me not to press the Amendment on the grounds that we might lose the Bill altogether because of
1214
the time factor. I agreed, because it was better to have some Act rather than no Act at all; but herein lie some of its limitations.
I should like to ask my noble friend. Lord Sandford, when he comes to wind up for Her Majesty's Government, whether he will take some urgent action to improve upon the monstrous three-wheeler vehicle. I believe these vehicles to be thoroughly dangerous and unsatisfactory. I drove one once and found it a most unpleasant experience. What is required is a suitable four-wheeled vehicle, at no greater cost than the three-wheeler. I wonder why there is reluctance to make progress on the matter? Is there an official fear that there might suddenly be an increased demand? I have read what my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, said in reply to the debate in another place last week. He said that the whole issue of vehicles for the disabled was under study by the Government. My Lords, when can we expect a decision? I hope that " under. discussion " is not the same as the description of Royal Commissions once used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he described them as the classical method used by people who did not want any real reform.
I would put forward one suggestion for consideration. What about some easement by way of tax relief for those who are disabled and who must have special equipment in order to effectively pursue their chosen careers? If my noble friend, when he comes to reply, has to tell me that there is no money, my answer will be, using some words of Emerson,
" Can anybody remember when times were not bad and money scarce?"
6.8 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate to-day. I was very pleased that he mentioned the importance of social life for the disabled, because in this connection I should like to raise paragraphs (c) and (f) of Section 2(1), covering holidays and outings. Such things make all the difference to the home-bound. Those who are able to get into cars can be driven about to all kinds of exciting

1215
places by kind volunteers, but there is a problem where special transport has to be provided for seriously handicapped people. This type of transport is extremely expensive and it is often necessary to make a wide tour, first of all to pick up all the disabled people living in scattered districts. For example, in London, if one could gather a load of these people—and they enjoy being together—they could be taken to Kew, to Richmond Park, to Windsor and sometimes perhaps to the sea. Some of the severely handicapped might also be taken for a trip on the Thames. They might even, for a bit of fun, be taken down the King's Road to see the sights. At this moment, and all this week, there are quite a number of disabled people who are being pushed around in their wheelchairs at the Chelsea Flower Show. The Act refers to arrangements for the provision of lectures, games, outings et cetera, but it does not say who pays.
Let me now say a word or two about holidays. Noble Lords who saw the Red Cross film in the Grand Committee Room, of which I had the honour to be one of the sponsors, will have seen the handicapped children being looked after by young members; they will have seen them joining in the games and races, and even in the novelty of peeling potatoes, something which they have never done and which is fun when doing it with other people. As well as that, they joined in the swimming, and of course the exciting pony rides. All this was fun, and it was enjoyed by the helpers as well as by the handicapped. This brings a wonderful atmosphere into their very dull lives. In London we are very lucky because grants are available from the London Boroughs Youth Committee for holidays for the handicapped; and the young people helping with these holidays can get a grant from the Inner London Education Authority towards their training—they of course, already having had elementary training. This is not so in other parts of the country, and the expense of holidays of this sort becomes a real problem.
The types of case that we like to include on these holidays include cerebral palsy, spinal bifidus, spastics, autistic children and others, because we believe that the mixing together of these dis-
1216
abilities is a good thing and cheers them all up. But, of course, they have to be supervised, not only by the young people who come to look after them and help them to enjoy a week or a fortnight, but also by specially trained people, like trained nurses, caterers, physiotherapists, welfare officers and others, according to the disability. These holidays are very worth while. But for adults it is a much more difficult problem, and much more expensive, because they come under welfare and not under education. The welfare grants are very limited, and therefore much more difficult to get, and there are many more handicapped than there is money available to provide for them. These holidays are important not only for the children and the adults, but also because they help parents and relatives, or those who are caring for the handicapped, to have a holiday or perhaps just a rest.
The real problem, as has been.said, is that although grants are available, the way in which local authorities use them differs in many parts of the country, as it does in the London boroughs. I am not at the moment talking about the disabled people living in hospitals, hostels or homes; I am concerned with the homebound, who are not always known to the local authority, and who rely on the different voluntary societies for any holiday or outing. The official view, no doubt governed by finance, is that one short holiday is all that can be managed. But we in the Red Cross find that immense pleasure and benefit can be given by regular outings. If grants towards the cost of transport, and particularly for hiring special vehicles, could be gone into, this would be a very real help. Also, if the word " provision " could be made compulsive instead of permissive, a great deal more could be done by the voluntary societies.
Noble Lords know the generosity of the disabled fellow sufferers, and our " mobile Bench " (Lord Aberdare's brilliant term) is a great example of this. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he replies, not to let them down. I would ask him please to tell me whether it was intended that the cost of transport was to be included in the arrangements for the provision of outings and the facilitating of holidays in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Section 2.
6.16 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for having brought the treatment of the chronically sick and disabled once again to the attention of this House. I am of the opinion that the Act which was passed is a substantial and important one, and if properly put into effect it will assist considerably in solving the problem that we are facing. I think one should pay tribute to the Member of Parliament, Mr. Alfred Morris, for having introduced a Bill on this subject, and having piloted that Bill into a place among the Statutes of our country. In a long Parliamentary experience, I have rarely, if ever, come across so refreshing an experience as witnessing this inspired effort, one which was met by such warm support from every Party in Parliament and throughout the country as a whole. I think, too, one ought to say here, as was said in another place, that Mr. Morris is to be congratulated on the great honour which has been bestowed upon him as the first recipient of the Harding Award for services to the disabled.
Living as we do in a world and time of stress and strain, we are apt to overlook the needs of our fellow citizens who are afflicted by physical or mental incapacities, unless, as in the case in some families, there is one or more than one member of the family who suffer such infirmity. That there are hundreds of thousands throughout the country of those who have no relatives to look after them, whose relatives ignore their existence, is well known to the various public and private bodies concerned with their problems. The magnificent work that is done by the voluntary organisations in this field, and by some authorities, must be acknowledged, but the indifference to the plight of these human beings is so widespread that the nation as a whole had to be jerked into a sense of its responsibility, in my view, by such a measure as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
It is now clear that millions of afflicted persons have been denied elementary necessities during the whole of their lives, which could have made living more tolerable for them and even reasonably happy. It is high time that the Government—whichever Government it may be
1218
—should fully implement the provisions of the Act, so as to relieve the anxieties and sufferings of those to whom it relates, and to do so to the fullest extent possible. The recent publications of the Social Security Division of the Office of Census and Surveys shows the strong need and urgency of remedial measures, but such action, to be as fully effective as possible, must in my view depend upon two factors in particular. It must be known what persons are in need of help, and those persons must be fully informed as to where they can obtain that help and what kind of help it is the duty of the authorities to provide.
The provisions of Section 1 of the Act are not to come into force until October. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, refer to this matter, but I ask: Why was there delay? Surely, every person to whom Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 applies depends upon information being ascertained in accordance with Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Otherwise, how can the local authorities know —I emphasise this—this need for making available in their area,
" services provided under arrangements made with the authority under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act "?
Or how can the authority ensure that every person shall be informed of any other services that are relevant to his needs?
What is causing grave concern to the general public is the fact that a year after the passing of the Act many local authorities have not yet even begun to implement Section 1 which makes it mandatory to search for and register the disabled. One such instance has been brought to my attention where a local voluntary body, recognising the fact that the reorganisation of social services was imposing a great strain upon the Department, volunteered to do this job for the local authority—I am not sure whether it is not the same case as that referred to earlier by a noble Lord on the other side of the House. They volunteered to do this job for the local authority. The local authority said that this was not acceptable, as the voluntary body do not have suitably qualified workers and the work done by the voluntary body would have to be checked in any event and no time would be saved at all. The Disablement

1219
Income Group who, among others, took exception to this decision, pointed out, quite rightly, as is my opinion, that it does not require an expert to seek out a housebound cripple or a paralysed person living in his own home without adequate support.
The Minister, Sir Keith Joseph, quite rightly said in another place that increased co-operation between statutory and voluntary bodies would be necessary to tackle problems of the chronic disabled. Is it not now time for the Government to take the initiative and to convene a conference of representatives of the relevant agencies to iron out difficulties such as the one I have just mentioned? I believe that the calling of a conference of that kind would be very useful in getting the assistance of the voluntary bodies—they are excellent bodies themselves—to implement the Act, and perhaps it would bring a considerable amount of information to the attention of the Government themselves and their representatives which hitherto they have not obtained.
A further example of how the Act is not being implemented comes to my mind. One of the less affluent boroughs was approached by a voluntary organisation on behalf of a housebound woman and a telephone was requested. The answer was that the authority in question did not have sufficient funds to pay for the installation of a telephone and the application was rejected. The end result was that the voluntary organisation felt obliged to pay for the installation itself. Such instances quite rightly incur the anger of voluntary organisations. They feel that it is their job to supplement the statutory obligations of local authorities, not to replace them. The two examples I have given illustrate the ambivalent feelings of local authorities towards voluntary organisations. On the one hand, they will reject the offer of social work help from " non-experts; " on the other hand, they will unstintingly use their resources rather than implement what is, after all, an Act of Parliament.
Unfortunately, certain parts of the Act give local authorities the power to be discretionary in the evaluation of need. The Act has many phrases such as:
" So far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable…
1220
et cetera. May I suggest that it is here that the Minister should acknowledge and accept that it is his Department's responsibility to ensure that local authorities do not default on the spirit of the Act; and, if possible, he should set up the means to check that they are complying to the satisfaction of the general public, and apply pressure where necessary.
The example I quoted regarding a less affluent borough being approached for a telephone gives rise to another matter of supreme importance; namely, the question of disparity of resources between the poor and the rich local authorities. Those boroughs which have taken up the challenge embodied in the Act must be duly commended. But is it not far easier for a wealthier borough to do so than a local authority with a high population of unemployed and disabled? It is high time for the Minister to take a hard look at this aspect and to make available the necessary resources in order to remove the unequal state of affairs which now obtains. Where a borough is obviously struggling to find a means to help its ailing community, should it not have access to funds from the central Government? The question of whether there is a disparity in various areas can be referred to by pointing out that, while the academic authorities agree that the incidence of severe disablement is evenly spread across our country, there can be no doubt that the incidence is particularly severe in some localities. In South Wales there are some mining communities where over 50 per cent. of the men over 50 years of age are severely damaged; and in the other coalfields—in Yorkshire, Durham, and parts of Scotland—the incidence is of a high nature, too.
Many of the points that I had intended to deal with have already been dealt with, and dealt with very effectively, by speakers who have addressed your Lordships before me. Noble Lords have expressed themselves in a manner beyond my capabilities, but I should like to mention one or two other points. I am wondering whether it has ever been taken into consideration, or whether the Government are taking into consideration, that changes take place in the possibilities of training such people as the blind, for example, who require assistance. In Leicester the Royal Institute for the Blind

1221
state that the blind have for a considerable period been making basketwork. This basketwork is now no longer being used to anything like the extent it was before. For example, prison baskets are now made in synthetics; and other uses of this product are falling very far from the position they held before as, for example, by the Post Office. Fresh machinery is required by an institution of that description for box making and later corrugated boxes, and it is not within their capability to provide the necessary funds for this purpose. I would suggest that this is a point which might be taken into consideration when examining the situation of the disabled, with a view to assistance being given.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. As I said before, I think all the points have been made admirably by previous speakers but the numbers which have now been revealed—3 million people coming within the category of those with whose cases we are dealing at the present time—have to be carefully regarded as a matter of extreme importance, and I hope that the Government will give maximum help and will insist upon local authorities doing their job as they should do it under the Act.
6.30 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate this afternoon and many re— markable contributions have been made. We are much indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for allowing us to spend a Wednesday afternoon discussing so very important a subject. I was most interested in what the Minister had to say, and I was delighted to hear that more money is being made available for the help which is so urgently needed, and which has been described so eloquently by other noble Lords.
The Minister made one reference that I should like to pick up before I come to the few things I want to say on the subject of this Motion. He referred to someone who would have been here to-day and would have spoken in this debate, and who has done more than anyone in my generation to organise voluntary services in a variety of different spheres of our national life—I mean, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady
1222
Swanborough, better known to us all as Stella Reading. It was a terrible shock to hear of her sudden death, as I did on Saturday morning when I was at home, listening to the wireless. She and I worked together for many years in the days before the war, when evacuation was being planned. We lived side by side in the same street in London, and it was a tremendous shock to realise that someone who had done so much voluntary work for the community and who was so deeply interested in all forms of voluntary work would not be with us to-day. I want to pay my tribute to her for all she has done; and I am sure that in saying that I am only voicing what many other noble Lords in this House feel about her sudden death.
My Lords, my contribution to-day is really to stand almost in a white sheet, because I am perhaps the only speaker in this debate who is actually a member of a local authority. I am a county councillor, here standing in your Lordships' House. Only yesterday afternoon I flew from Newcastle down to London in time to take my share of the interminable discussions on the Industrial Relations Bill, and I came straight from a county council meeting. All that has been said about local authorities is absolutely true, but I should like to make one point. Many local authorities are most anxious to do what they can to implement the Act, but there are quite a number of difficulties in their way. I am one of the people who want to see Section 1 to the Act, which calls for a register of handicapped people, put into effect. I am the chairman of the social work committee on my county council. I have a perfectly excellent director of social work and a team of excellent social workers. I think I shall be able to get a register of all the disabled and handicapped people in the county which I represent, but the task is very difficult.
If I may say so, I was immensely glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, all that she said about co-operation with the local doctors and the medical officer of health. It seems to me that it is difficult to get a register voluntarily. It is also very difficult to get the doctors to give one, from their roll of patients, all the necessary information

1223
about disabled people. It may be that that information will come in time; and perhaps people will realise that this is not an attempt to pry into their private affairs but a genuine attempt to try to find out the extent of the problem in any given area. The area that I represent is tiny, and it should not be at all difficult for me to get all the information I want. But when we think of the cities, and the large areas in London, there is obviously a great problem. Yet I am sure that it is essential to get it all done, and I would endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said about trying to use a variety of approaches not only through the doctors (because it seems to be difficult to get the co-operation of the doctors) but also through the services ancillary to medicine, as she described them. and all local authorities have those services.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that one could use many of the voluntary organisations which are expert in many of these subjects, although they may not have what are called professional social workers. However, they have people who are accustomed to working with and knowing about disabled people, and such workers can be used. But I would suggest to the Government that it is tremendously important that we should insist upon getting this register, because otherwise we have no idea what the total picture is in any given area; and until we get that it is extremely difficult to take any extensive action. Local authorities must be urged, and members of local authorities must be told, that this is a real priority in their lives. Again speaking as a member of a local authority I know that there are innumerable subjects which tumble on to one's desk and about which one has to know. It is difficult to decide on priorities. But it seems to me that this is one of the real priorities, and one could turn an eye away from some of the other subjects which one is looking after, because this is the first opportunity we have ever had to try to deal with this subject, and the responsibility is being laid on local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, mentioned the great importance of getting local authorities to look at this responsibility. Of course they have not done
1224
a great deal so far. Most local authorities, and particularly the staff, are enormously overworked. But the work is now being done in Scotland, where operation of the Act has been going on for about two years and is working very well. But it is only just beginning in England, so that makes it more difficult for the authorities there. But I still think that every effort should be made by the central department to impress upon the local government that this is a number one priority.
During this debate, several noble Lords have mentioned various items of importance under this Act, and I should like to mention just one or two. I would first thank the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, and the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, very much for what they said about the importance of educating autistic children. Your Lordships will know that I have a very close association with the National Society for Autistic Children, and only recently I had the opportunity of discussing this subject with the Minister of Education on a deputation. The Minister was most sympathetic and understanding, and very anxious to help in every possible way to bring the training of teachers for autistic children into the other important aspects of the training of teachers. Also my plea to her, which is one that has been echoed by many noble Lords, is that there should be included among the special teaching arrangements in any given local education authority, the teaching of autistic children. It should not be done by a voluntary society. It is impossible; it is far too big a subject. It should be done in the same way as the teaching of the deaf, or the blind, or the spastics, as part of the education authority's responsibility. I hope very much that the Government will encourage all local education authorities to make a point of including among the specialist teaching that of the teaching of autistic children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, raised another very important point which we must not leave out—it is in the Act, and it is again something that can be laid at the door of the local authorities—and that is the question of holidays and of facilities for doing things other than just earning a living. No one

1225
feels more anxious than I do that disabled people should be put into the position of being as independent as possible, to be able to earn their living and be taught whatever trade or work they can do. But there are other things in life. There is the joy we get from going to see beautiful things, picture galleries, listening to music, attending courses in subjects in which we are interested. These should come into the picture as well as the question of the disabled being rehabilitated and earning their living. It is vital that they should also have the joy of doing something not technical, something that helps the spirit and the morale. I hope that the local authorities—because they now have mandatory powers—will help with things other than just the technical matter of rehabilitation and earning a living. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referred to youth clubs, spread throughout the country for the physically handicapped and able-bodied young people working together—what are known as the Phab Clubs. These have been an immense success. They are running courses of a week or a fortnight on interesting subjects for young people, the handicapped and able-bodied together. I am very keen that the local authorities should back that as well.
There is one further point in which I am particularly interested. Shortly, due to the generosity of the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, we shall be able to build a purpose-built college of further education which disabled people will he able to go to for a week or a fortnight, not for technical training but for just the sort of things of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, spoke, to do with the study of art or music or other subjects than people want. This enterprise, which is only beginning, will, I hope, make a great contribution to help disabled people. It will be built by voluntary funds and it will be among the Selly Oak Colleges in Birmingham. Once it is built it will be somewhere the local authorities can send people to, where they will find that extra bit of happiness and interest. They will be enabled to meet other people, non-handicapped people as well, since it will be in the middle of an area where there are a number of colleges of further education not for handicapped people at all, and quite near the university. Indeed,
1226
we hope to get help from the university extra-mural teachers.
I mention these things because they are all part of the good which arises out of this remarkable Act of Parliament. It requires a tremendous amount of energy, drive and imagination, and for all the members of the local authorities to take an interest in it. It is something which will revolutionise the lives of the people about whom we are speaking. There are three million of them. I do not believe half the country knows how many there are. Every day we hear on the wireless of tragic cases, of serious motor accidents and so on, and these people are being added to the list every day. Yet we cannot get the local authorities or anyone else to take a real interest in it. Perhaps to-day in this House and in another place our words will be listened to and we shall recruit from among the voluntary enthusiasts as well as local authorities people who will help to make this a living Act, not just a dead Act written on a piece of paper. I feel sure we shall have done something well worth while if out of this debate comes action of this kind.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I join, as I am sure does everyone in the tributes paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, to Lady Reading. Certainly, as she says, there has been no one in our time, man or woman, Peer or commoner, who has done as much for the voluntary services as Stella Reading. Many of the large things are well known. I suppose, perhaps, in these collective days no individual will ever be able to build a big social service, as she, with many friends, but in a sense on her own, built the W.V.S. There are many smaller things which cannot in some cases be revealed even yet; she helped people in circumstances that might be embarrassing if they were known. But at any rate there was nobody more effective, or for that matter more kindly. If one really wanted help for somebody in an extremely sticky position Stella Reading was the one person who provided the effective help, and she did so often. I feel sure that if she were asked now—and no doubt she is enjoying this debate elsewhere—she would say that if there is one person left to us here who is likely before the close to do more for the voluntary services

1227
than anyone else, that would be the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who is far too modest to recognise that fact; but I am sure that is how it would have struck Lady Reading.
The noble Baroness said that so far as she was aware she was the only member of a local authority speaking in this debate, and I have no doubt, as she said that, that as she always speaks the truth it is true; I have no reason to think it is not. Perhaps it is just as well that I am no longer a member, as I was once proud to be, of the Oxford City Council, because, so far as I can make out, their record is deplorable, and if I were still a member I should not have the temerity to face the House at all. I do not know why things have gone to the dogs since my time in Oxford, but so it seems.
The House is waiting to hear important speeches from the noble Baroness who is to follow me, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the Minister. I rise to speak more by way of token than in order to take up any time or say anything very important. I am afraid that, through engagements that simply could not be put off, I was unable to hear the first speeches, including the fine speech, as I know it was and heard it was, of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and speeches, also very successful, from the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and others. I was particularly sorry to miss the maiden speech, which everyone says was so good, of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, who understands this problem so well at first hand. But yet it might be argued in the circumstances that this is an occasion when I would have done well to keep silent; I miss a good opportunity, as they say in French, to hold my tongue.
Nevertheless, it would have seemed a little discourteous to the House, in view of the fact that I had the great honour of technically carrying this Bill through this House last year, and it would have shown some lack of respect for the noble Lord— he is not a noble Lord yet—Mr. Alf. Morris, who deserves whatever honours this world has to offer. It might have shown some slight lack of respect for him, because we all regard his achievement as perhaps the greatest single legislative achievement of a private Member that any of us can remember. It has
1228
been well brought out, even while I have been here—by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for example—that we now realise that the situation is even more urgent than we thought it was last year. It was partially uncovered last year by Mr. Alf. Morris and many others, but now that the facts are beginning to emerge and they probably have not all come out yet —the situation is more grave. We now realise that the Bill was still more overdue than we thought at the time. Therefore, I make no apology for saying these very few words.
Some of your Lordships may, or may not, have heard that I have been involved in a struggle against a moral evil. It may be said, on the face of it, that here we are struggling against a physical evil and not, in that sense, combating something that is morally detestable. That is certainly true if we think of the disabled themselves and their affliction. But if we are thinking of ourselves, of the community as a whole, then certainly our failure to do anything effective to help the disabled in the past is a moral delinquency of the first order. So we can fairly describe it as a moral evil if we do not do far better in the future than we have ever done in the past. If one asks why have we done so relatively little, why has it taken us so much effort and so much time to discover the facts and the poignancy and the possibilities of help—because many people have told us to-day, Lady Ruthven among others, of things that are being done to improve the lot of those who are disabled—I offer this thought. Perhaps it is because we ourselves refuse to admit what has been occasionally brought out in the speeches —and I remember the noble Lord, Lord Platt, speaking in the debates last year—that we are all disabled. We tend to think of ourselves as, so to speak, the able-bodied, and of some other branch of humanity as the disabled. There are ways in which they are more disabled than we are, but it is as well to think of ourselves as all disabled in one sense or another. Therefore, the only thought that I leave with the House to-day is that we shall buckle to and do much better in the future if we approach the problem of the disabled in a spirit of humility.
It is true of everyone in this country and in other countries that we are all mutually dependent. Nobody can just

1229
stand on his own feet and say, " I do not need anybody's help." We all need help from somebody, and most of us need help from a great many people. So do not let us fail to identify ourselves with the disabled. It is sometimes possible in social work to identify oneself, but sometimes it is not wise to do so. When one tries to do youth work it is not always wise to identify oneself with the young, or one might break one's Achilles tendon or strain one's heart. There may be a danger in over-identification with the young. In the case of delinquents, it is a good rule to remember that we are all sinners, and when we try to help the disabled let us remember that we are all disabled. That, I think, is the beginning of wisdom.
6.54 p.m..
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, this Motion was first in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, so I should like to thank him first. I thank the Cross-Bench Peers for agreeing that this day be given for investigating the progress of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I also thank my noble friend Lord Ingleby for giving us this opportunity. There is no rush to-night, there is no dissolution of Parliament hanging over our heads and, as I am speaking in this position, it has been suggested that I make a few remarks on what noble Lords have said to-day. But, first, I should like to say what I myself have prepared.
This debate has been pending for some time in this House, but when I heard recently that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was also to be discussed in another place I was extremely pleased, as great importance is being attached to that Act which involves facilities for millions of people. It entails not only the disabled themselves, but their families and helpers who will benefit or suffer from good or inadequate facilities. Now that the Government's survey on handicapped and impaired people in Great Britain has been completed, and the number of problems has been found to be even greater than was anticipated, I hope that this country will really get down to providing facilities which will enable the disabled to live more contented and congenial lives.
1230
I am sure that Members of another place will have had many letters from disabled constituents and their relatives. I have had several hundred, with all sorts of inquiries, and I have four filing cabinets bulging. Often the telephone rings, and there is usually a distraught mother who has tried all the departments she can to solve her problems, and I am her last resort. It is for that reason that I welcome Section 1 of the Act, and I hope that when it comes into effect everyone who needs welfare services will be made aware of them. I hope that if local authorities cannot provide their own facilities they will make use of centres in other parts of the country. I get most frustrated trying to find information regarding after-care services; this seems to be a great weakness. In some areas ancillary services do not seem to exist.
The field of the disabled is so wide and so varied, and the problems are so many, that it seems unlikely that local authorities and Government will be able to solve them without the help of the voluntary societies. It is for this reason that I should like to see a directory for the disabled. This could be like a telephone directory, with different coloured pages and headings, with all the facilities and places of treatment and equipment available to the disabled. With advertisements, such a directory could most likely pay its way. It should be made available in Post Offices, welfare departments and in all places dealing with the disabled. The Roman Catholic Church has a comprehensive directory giving all sorts of valuable information about its facilities. If the Department of Health and Social Security could follow the example of the Catholic Church, I am sure that many people would benefit.
I also feel that hospitals could do more in the way of equipping patients with information before discharge. Many patients are sent to units specialising in different fields of treatment. If they were discharged with a small booklet giving information relating to their special needs, it could. save a great deal of worry. Once outside the protective walls of a hospital, with its trained staff to give support, a badly disabled person once at home can feel utterly isolated and neglected and it is very easy to forget what to do when something goes wrong. The Marie Curie Memorial Foundation

1231
has an excellent little booklet called Advice to Patients following Mastectomy.I hope that when community health care comes into effect in 1974, there will be more of a link between hospital and home for patients who are to remain with a disability.
Some voluntary organisations have made a start at making known the aids which are available for the disabled. As noble Lords have already said, there is now an aids centre in Kensington, which I have visited, run by the Disabled Living Foundation. This is an excellent place, but it is not easy for disabled people or their families to visit London from the North, as travelling has become so expensive. As my noble friend Lady Darcy has said, the Spastics Society has launched a mobile aid centre which will travel from place to place. This has access for the disabled, and disabled people should be able to make themselves aware of new aids which may help them to a more independent life. When local authorities make the registers of disabled people, I hope this will be done diplomatically and by skilled people. I feel it is important that people's privacy is not invaded unnecessarily. But the needs of the disabled should be thoroughly assessed, so that resources are correctly allocated and help is readily available when needed.
It is dangerous to build people up too much if there is no hope of giving them what they want. They will become warped, and feel neglected and let down. Loneliness can be a real killer; and this should be unnecessary, as there are many voluntary groups willing to help. But it is a real problem. Only last week I had several telephone calls. One was from a disabled lady who said she was about to " go up the wall " as she had nothing to do. She wanted to be involved in something useful. Another lady tele— phoned me saying she had a group of people who had a riding school ponies, instructor and helpers—but how were they to get the disabled riders? I hope that when the registers are made local authorities will be able to help put people needing help and people wanting to help in touch with each other. Some local authorities are finding practical difficulty in deciding who is chronically sick and disabled. It is quite obvious that some-
1232
one who has completely broken his neck is " permanently and substantially handicapped ", but somebody with a chest or heart condition may be permanently but not substantially handicapped. A person with a progressive disease may not be substantially handicapped at the time, but will obviously become so. The victim of a stroke may be substantially handicapped at some time, but cease to be so in the future. It is because of these changing conditions that I hope local authorities will act with flexibility when dealing with the disabled. Rigid rules do not work when dealing with human beings or human problems: they only restrict and tie down.
My Lords. having spoken with some of the new directors of social services. I have been greatly encouraged by the outlook. One tells me that he wants his staff to address the people they are corresponding with by name rather than " Sir " or " Madam ", and he hopes that, in turn, he will be known by his name. This personal approach seems to be a good start. to set his new department off to the spirit, " We will help if we can ", rather than the old attitude of " not getting involved " and treating the disabled as cases and not people. To provide many of the facilities in Clause 2 I should think will be impossible unless full cooperation between the voluntary and statutory bodies takes place. In some areas, to provide a home help service is difficult, as there is a lack of home helps: but I know of one local authority which has refused to increase this service and has in fact cut down on home helps. Perhaps after to-day something will be done about this. To make the Act really work, there needs to be more social workers who have the specialised knowledge and skill necessary to help physically handicapped persons. There is a crying need for more occupational therapists. Because of the difficulty of getting occupational therapists, we are now at less than half the proper quota, with about one occupational therapist per half million of the population. I I hope the new social service departments will be able to develop this service over the years.
The Library Association run a housebound service. In some areas this is operating and disabled people have an excellent service, but in other areas it does

1233
not exist. I was sorry to find last year that very badly disabled people who spent most of the day in bed, living in residential care such as a Cheshire Home, had to pay a full television licence each. A few of the more severely disabled had been given a television set to have in their own room. They had a terrible surprise when they found that they had to pay the full licence, even though the Home already paid for the communal set. Each room in my London hotel has its own television set, but I am sure the hotel does not pay for about 200 television licences. I did not receive a helpful reply from the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications; and I am reminded of these cases every time I stay in my hotel.
My Lords, the telephone section has caused more controversy than any other. Some authorities have made a start. I know, for example, that Sheffield have installed their first 15 telephones and intend to continue taking the cases by priority. But some other local authorities seem to have done nothing, and have adopted a most stubborn and limiting outlook. One particular authority in the North refused to supply a telephone to two very severely disabled people living alone, one virtually immobile, even though their doctor had stated that in their case a telephone would be a safety link which was reasonable and justifiable, and could prove lifesaving. I feel that if local authorities were to send in a report to the Government on what progress they had made during the year this might keep the less progressive ones up to the mark. Anyway, hope that the Government intend in some way to ask for this information.
Since the passing of the Act, new buildings have been built, and it was the mayor of one town who remembered about access for the disabled at a place open to the public. It will be necessary for all members of the community to remember Section 4. Unless one is a disabled person not able to climb steps, it is so easy, accidentally, to forget. In some towns, new shopping precincts are being built. These are usually excellent shopping places for wheelchair users, having everything at hand. But new construction subways, with steps at intervals, are being built, preventing access. What can be done about this? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will give us some suggestions.
1234
This year I have visited several fine town halls, three being those at Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. When I sit looking up at the many palatial steps, and at the solid majestic buildings which will still be there long after all of us arc dead, I feel despondent. The only hope is to adapt. I think the four of us here to-day in wheelchairs all feel grateful for the example that your Lordships' House and the other place have set. The disabled persons' lavatory must have been the first to be established after the passing of this Act. When I visited Lord Dalkeith yesterday in hospital, I was able to tell him that he could use the disabled persons' lavatory. This now is a very progressive place, used by both sexes. He was very pleased, as he had not realised this.
When I went to Waterloo Station the other day I wanted to go to the lavatory. The first one I went to had several steps, so I set off in search of another, asking a porter on the way. I asked him if he knew of a lavatory with access for a wheelchair. He did not know, he said, as he had never visited the " Ladies' "! When I arrived at the second " Ladies' ", at the other end of the station, I was delighted to find an excellent lavatory—in fact, the first one I have been to at a station where I have been able to shut the door. This adventure made me wonder if stations know of Section 7 of the Act, " Signs at buildings ". When driving down the M.1, I found an excellent " Ladies" with a ramped entrance, but before reaching this it was necessary to jump up a large step on to an island, making what would have been accessible inaccessible. It is these small points which should not be overlooked.
The importance of providing suitable housing for the disabled was brought home to me a few days ago when I received a letter about a young, physically disabled man paralysed through an accident. He is now being treated in a psychiatric ward, having made several attempts on his own life. I have been told that his problems related to housing and employment. These cases of tragedy could be avoided if there were better provisions, but employment has hardly been touched upon in this Act. With the larger numbers of disabled needing employment, if not for the financial benefits for their self-respect, this subject needs full investigation.

1235
It has been proved, and I think all your Lordships will agree, that it is better for disabled people to remain in their own houses whenever possible. In the Social Survey, Part 2, it was found that many disabled people live in inadequate housing and without even indoor lavatories. The Multiple Sclerosis Housing Association has a scheme which is new. It helps to provide for multiple sclerosis patients welfare housing of such a kind that sufferers will be able to maintain their independence for the longest possible time. Particular emphasis is being placed on retaining the family unit and by the provision of the necessary welfare and nursing services, giving the opportunity to fit married partners to continue in or begin employment, instead of being dependent upon the State. This pilot scheme does not fit into the existing pattern of welfare housing or sheltered housing schemes. To succeed, this scheme will require the cooperation of both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Health. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether this will be possible.
In Section 8, " Access to and facilities at universities or school buildings ", I should be grateful for a fuller answer to my question which I asked during the debate on handicapped children. Sometimes the Department of Education and Science are prepared to allow certain items of abnormal expenditure—for example, those due to site conditions—over and above the cost limit. If it is desired to incorporate in a project certain special provisions for handicapped people it is most likely that it will be possible to meet the cost within the normal prescribed cost limits. I asked whether the Department of Education and Science would be prepared to allow the cost of the facilities for handicapped people over and above the normal cost limits? The answer I received was that the Secretary of State had given sympathetic consideration to certain proposals from local education authorities, but it is not entirely clear whether the answer related to existing buildings or to new buildings. Will it be possible for local education authorities to have larger minor building programme allocations which will make it easier to carry out such work as they consider necessary to help disabled people?
1236
Section 17 gives me a great deal of concern, but perhaps it is too early to expect any progress so far. I am still hearing of cases of young patients being sent to geriatric wards. Some areas have no accommodation at all for young disabled people. Are the Government going to press local authorities to provide suitable places for young people? Local authorities do a great deal to equip the disabled people in their own homes, in the way of providing hoists and aids, but very often they do not do this when these people are in residential voluntary homes. Yet the disabled people, of course, still need lifting and helping with daily living. Some local authorities depend almost entirely on these voluntary places. Many of these homes are struggling to make ends meet. I should like to know what the West Riding of Yorkshire would do if all the ordinary residential homes for the handicapped closed down. In borstal to-day there is a high percentage of boys who are from families with disabled parents. The battle has been too great. the circumstances too difficult. Many of these children are lucky if they go to school with a cup of tea for their breakfast. By stopping free milk for children aged from 7 to 11 years, the Government, I believe, are actually encouraging the development of more disabling disabilities, such as bone deficiency, deficiency of vitamins and dental troubles. So I very much hope this unpopular decision will be reconsidered. Then there are some borderline cases, such as sufferers from post-encephalitis, who do not seem to fit in anywhere. Will it be possible for local authorities to supply more residential care for such people?
Section 20 caused great disappointment to some users of invalid carriages. There was great rejoicing when the severely disabled users of these carriages thought they had been granted a little more freedom. This was short-lived when brown envelopes arrived, the contents of which told them that the Ministry electric chairs were for indoor use only. I think the circular could have been less harsh, perhaps giving them a little hope and encouraging them to buy, or to get given by a voluntary society, another wheelchair. Section 21 gives the first glimmer of hope to the badly disabled passenger. He has at last been recognised and will soon be able to display a badge on his

1237
car. He may have spent all his life savings on this car, as this is the only way to independence. Of all the Amendments that did not get into the Bill I felt most sorry about the one relating to disabled mothers, as also did the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. Both of us have young children. We feel that to separate children from their mothers is one of the cruellest things one can do. I hope the day will come when families with disabled members will be encouraged to unite.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, say that employment should be encouraged for disabled people. I feel that if the S.E.T. tax were removed in the case of the disabled this might encourage firms to take more disabled people. Certainly in the North, people are business men, and if disabled persons are to be laid off they will do this.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I know, has been working very hard. I have had personal proof of this, and I know that he is far from complacent. I feel that the care of the disabled is in good hands. He says that local authorities will not spend their own money, but I feel that the Government should act as a big brother in some cases and give expert advice when it is needed, because they have the better facilities for getting this advice. The chief cause of disabilities, he said, was arthritis and I was delighted to hear that more money is to be given to research. I myself am connected with the West Riding Medical Research, and I hope that they will benefit from this decision. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, make his excellent maiden speech on this subject. We felt that we now had a man with a true understanding of the problems of the disabled when he said that we want to live in dignity.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, brought up the problem of the local authorities. We feel that he has stressed the need for the progress report, and I shall await with interest the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on what he is able to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), brought up the subject of the means test. I think that this is the first time that this has been mentioned. For example, there could be a
1238
husband and wife, the wife being disabled, the husband a school teacher. It is very hard if, because of his wife's disability, he cannot live to the standard of his own profession. This might well encourage the break-up of the marriage. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester spoke, we felt it very important that right reverend Prelates should take part in debates of this kind. I am delighted to hear that the Church is going to encourage the voluntary and statutory bodies to work together.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, made a splendid speech. The hospital services are very much in the news and I know only too well the need for more nurses. A great deal of energy seems to be needed to find a way to put nursing at the top of the professions, to make it so attractive that people will want to take it up. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, stressed the need for domiciliary physiotherapy. I should like to add to this by saying how important we feel domiciliary physiotherapy to be and how especially useful to the high lesion tetraplegics who will be put at risk if they go in the winter to hospital physiotherapy departments where they might be in contact with infectious diseases such as influenza. Also, this service would help the elderly disabled who may have arthritic or rheumatic disorders and for whom travelling long distances in an ambulance can be too painful or too vigorous. To keep these people going in their own homes would help relieve the overcrowding of our under-staffed hospitals. I am sure that this will be economically beneficial as well as a happier solution all round.
The noble Lord, Lord Harding, said that we were only touching the fringe of the problem. He stressed the need for research, of prevention being better than cure; for, as he said, often there is no cure. Perhaps there is hope that one day there will be a way of joining the spinal cord, and when that happens three of us here will leap out of our chairs. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is an excellent person and one experienced in campaigning for the disabled. On behalf of the disabled I should like to thank her for her support. I was pleased to hear the noble Countess, Lady

1239
Loudoun, who brought up the point of the mentally ill. We all know that they need even more tender and loving care than the physically disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, again spoke on research. There could be no better person to remind the Government about the need for a Report on this subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ruthven, spoke on the progress that autistic children make when they have the correct facilities. The noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, stressed the need for rehabilitation. I could not agree more that it should be the right of every disabled person to have rehabilitation to develop to the full their potentialities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, spoke of the need to widen the interests of the disabled and of the need of holidays. All of us are better for holidays. I am delighted to support what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said about Alfred Morris, who has become a great friend of all disabled people because of his sincerity. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, stressed the need to know who the disabled are. Nobody can say that this point has not now been made plain to the Government. We were pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Longford gave his support and also paid tributes in which I am sure we all join.
7.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, one consolation about coming at the end of a debate of 19 speakers, all excellent, is that it will not be necessary for me to labour the points but rather to underline some of those which have been made so ably by various speakers throughout the debate. I should like to pay tribute immediately to the late Lady Swanborough. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned her, as did subsequent speakers. She was a remarkable person, a warm-hearted woman and one we shall always remember. It is not necessary for an individual to have a large monument to her memory if she has been a practical and loving person throughout her life.
My Lords, I remember the excitement when we had the " charter for the chronically sick and disabled " introduced into this House last year by our " Mobile
1240
Bench ". I am delighted to see them here again, all in action. I think that " action " is the word. They have certainly all come in again with the practical suggestions and informative speeches by which we have now come to recognise them so well. I should like also to pay tribute to the splendid maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. He immediately touched the right chord for all when he said that what we want is that the sick and disabled should live in dignity. He said that we all seek that all human beings should live in dignity; and I think that this is the note which this debate has struck to-day.
When my noble friend Lady Serota, speaking for the Government at that time, spoke about the Bill, she said that it was a valuable pointer for forms of action that ought to be produced in the future. This is the point from which we start. That Bill, now this Act, is a form of action. It has 29 sections; it affects no fewer than ten Departments of State and, as the social survey has shown and as many noble Lords have said, the size of the problem is vast—even vaster than was recognised at that time. But until Section 1 is fully implemented—and we must never forget this—two-thirds of Britain's handicapped may be denied the benefit of the provisions of the Act. Until Section 1 is implemented the rest of the Act will not come to fruition. Several noble Lords have emphasised this fact to-day.
They have also mentioned the necessity for co-operation between the voluntary and the statutory social services. As one who has devoted the greater part of her life to the voluntary services, I should like to remind the House that the Council of Social Services have always sought full co-operation with all the voluntary and statutory services. This Act has been the mainspring for many of the activities that have been carried out. I would repeat something that was said in the original debate by a certain noble Lord. He spoke not from the Bench he now occupies—and this is the intriguing part of this debate that takes place a year after the original debate. He spoke of a particular circular which gave comprehensive guidance to the local authorities on the discharge of their duties

1241
to the disabled under the legislation to which he was referring. He said:
" I would invite the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, to say whether she would also agree that the moment for a second edition of that circular is now close at hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/4/70, col. 248.]
He then gave various reasons (which I shall not repeat now) why this should be done. The speaker was the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am sure that we are going to get this circular as he is now in a position to do all the things that he urged the Government to do when he was in Opposition.
My Lords, a great deal of thought has been given to Section 2, the provisions in which a re of course not mandatory. I draw the attention of your Lordships to what happens when individual matters are left to local authority services, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. At the risk of boring your Lordships, I use as an example a question concerning blind children. There are blind children in the care of the Cardiff local authority, which is not, I should have thought, a poor authority; it is not one perhaps about which my noble friend Lord Janner was pleading. The authority has not paid travelling expenses for those blind children taken to a residential school rather against Ole wishes of the parents.
The reply given to me on this subject by the Secretary of State for Wales highlights, 1 think, what a local authority will not do if something is not mandatory. On the question of travelling expenses, the Secretary of State said:
"Local education authorities do have discretionary power to assist, not only with the expenses of the children travelling home for week-ends but also to assist parents, where travelling or other expenses are high, with the cost of visiting the school as often as the interests of the child may require. In assessing the need for assistance in such cases, however, authorities usually take into account the fact that the parents are relieved of a greater part of the expense of maintaining the child while at a residential school."
My Lords, the parents do not want to be relieved of a greater part of the expense of maintaining their children. They are not receiving any help with the travelling expenses. I cite this as an example of what a local authority will not do unless the powers given to it by the central Government are of a mandatory character,
1242
Several references have been made to the provision of telephones. This again is an example where the mandatory character of the provisions of the Act would have been much more satisfactory. Local councils are laying down regulations about telephones which are so ridiculous that a disabled person, unless he or she is a chronic house-bound invalid, with no relatives and practically no money, cannot get a telephone. This is not the way it was envisaged that the Act would work. Other authorities are insisting that such disabled persons must have no relatives in the town or other friends nearby who can answer the telephone. If these provisions are made difficult, and are hedged around with enough rules, no one will take advantage of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw made the point, as have other noble Lords—and it is one we must reiterate—that to keep people in their own homes must always be our first priority. There is no true saving of public money, to put it at its lowest, in failing to provide adequate local services for the severely disabled. If local authorities think that there is such a saving, they confuse apparent cost with net cost. The more people can be encouraged to live in their own homes as normally as possible, the less cost will fall on public funds.
I also wish to refer to the question of access to public transport. I believe that one noble Lord has already referred to this matter, but it is so important that it is worth mentioning again. When we were debating this subject last year my noble friend Lord Hughes agreed to issue a circular on access to public transport. He said he would make a statement about the circular on the needs of the disabled with reference to access to public transport which the Government intended to issue to operators and manufacturers of equipment. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, actually withdrew an Amendment on the understanding that this matter would be dealt with. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate; have there in fact been further discussions, and has the circular been issued?
I should have liked to feel that there was no further need for the activities of the Disablement Income Group, but unfortunately we still find that disablement is synonymous with povetry, and there is

1243
still need for the work of this Group. I was delighted when the Minister reminded us about the attendance allowance and the invalidity allowance, but even allowing for these, there are still many disabled housewives whose cases have not yet been dealt with.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and other noble Lords referred to the question of mobility. I mention this point again because I recently had a case which I drew to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, concerning these wretched three-wheeled vehicles. A very articulate and well-educated lady kept a diary about her activities with such a vehicle. It contained some hair-raising statements. I only wish that time permitted me to read from the diary. When questions were asked of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, he gave a very sympathetic reply. He said,
" I am sorry to hear of Miss Page's unfortunate experience with a three-wheeler. I can assure you that it is not typical."
I am sorry to say that I am afraid it is typical.
By the same post I received another letter from another articulate lady relating the experience she has had with a three-wheeled invalid vehicle. Is it possible that I have found the only two disabled people in the country who have had difficulty with three-wheeled vehicles? Both these ladies have experienced difficulty in getting repairs done to their machines. I ask the Minister to look at this question again. The lady in the second case told me that on one occasion she had to wait at least two months for a new battery. Because of the nature of these machines, the number of people who will service and repair them is small, and as a result disabled people suffer all kinds of complications which no one should be required to suffer.
My Lords, we have had a very full debate. There are a great many other points that I should have liked to raise, but they were raised most ably by the opener of this debate and by various noble Lords who have spoken from a depth of experience of knowledge. The 1970 Act still remains to me an exciting charter for the disabled. I conclude with
1244
the words of Mr. Alfred Morris, spoken when he presented his paper to the Royal Society of Medicine on the occasion of the Harding Award. He said—and this is what it is all about:
" We seek a society where there is a genuine respect for the handicapped, where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where if years cannot be added to the lives of the very sick, at least life can be added to their years, where needs come before means and where no man has cause to feel ill at ease because of his disability."
I wish more power to our " Mobile Bench ". I hope they will again bring to our notice the working of the Act and see that it really becomes a working Act.
7.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I can see that I have to avoid two errors—either of being so thorough in trying to reply to this debate that I become tedious to the whole House, or so brief as to be discourteous to our 21 speakers. May I assure them all that we have taken notes of what they have said and that either my noble friend Lord Aberdare or I will reply later if I do not reply to them now.
I have it in mind to go briskly through the sections of the Act and to comment on the progress that has been made, and answer some of the points which have been made on each section. But before doing so, I should refer to one or two points put to me which do not relate to any specific section of the Act. One was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. with reference to the Department of Employment's survey of employment services for the disabled. That work will. we expect, be completed by the end of the year. The noble Viscount also raised the question of sloping kerbs. The further investigations which have been made into this matter indicate that there are disadvantages, as well as advantages, to the extent that it is not possible to give general guidance upon them; but local authorities are perfectly free to adopt this proposal in particular cases where it seems to them appropriate. The matter rests like that.
I was asked by a number of speakers to dwell at some length on Section 1, and I will do so; but I shall not tackle every

1245
other section in the Act. The Department of Health and Social Security are at present consulting the local authority associations about this section. It is intended to give authorities guidance about implementing subsection (1) when it comes into operation on October 1. It has not finally been decided precisely what form the advice should take, but it will be designed to enable authorities to obtain, in the first instance, a reasonably good estimate of the number of handicapped people in their area so that they may plan services to meet their needs. Probably the 'simplest method of arriving at this is to carry out a sample survey. This will not enable local authorities to identify and register more than a fraction of those qualifying for service, but it will give them a target figure to aim at. Advice to local authorities will cover the various methods of drawing representative samples and recommend the most useful one; discuss whether a postal sift is necessary; examine the problem of non-response and give advice about how to deal with it; identify and classify the handicapped and attempt to define groups not 'adequately covered by the survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It will suggest methods of establishing primary needs and suggest interview schedules, instructions for administration and coding instructions, and give advice about methods of estimating from sample to total population.
The views of those who say that only a complete registration of the handicapped will achieve the objects of Section 1 are, of course, fully understood; and they have been well deployed during the debate. However, the survey suggests that among the very large number of impaired people there are many who do not want to be registered. As many as 70 per cent. of those who had no previous knowledge of the register said that they did not want to be registered. Bearing in mind that there is no compulsion to register, it is agreed that the ultimate object should be the comprehensive identification of those in need. But the cost and effort of seeking this immediately would he likely to result in too great a diversion of money and personnel, so tha. the whole point of the task would be nullified. Also, total identification is not a once-for-all exercise, and would need
1246
to be constantly up-dated. While I accept that a few local authorities may well feel justified in embarking straightaway on 100 per cent. identification, properly organised sample surveys are an essential first stage in carrying out the duty under subsection (1) and would be the right first step in most areas.
My Lords, I was glad about what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester regarding the way in which this whole exercise presents an excellent challenge for co-operation between statutory and voluntary bodies. In this connection I would mention again the booklet on services for the handicapped. It is in course of preparation by the D.H.S.S., who are now considering how it may best he directed to those in need. It is designed to complement local publicity material provided by the authority itself, so that disabled people are continuously made aware of what is available. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion, this is one of the matters on which advice will be given to local authorities. It is the subject of current discussion with the local associations and further research is going on into ways and means of getting information of this kind to the handicapped who need to have it.
I turn now to Section 2. I was particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) for all she had to say about this. The noble Lady spoke so briskly that I must confess I did not get it all down myself; but it is all in Hansard, I trust, and we shall be able to read it there with great profit. The subsection on home helps is an illustration of a service which is now—contrary to what I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. thought—made a mandatory service by the bringing into force of Section 13 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. There is now a duty on local authorities to provide this service. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, asked about wages for home helps. Those are determined by the Joint Standing Committee for local authority manual workers, so it is not a matter which is within the discretion of the Secretary of State.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. may I ask the noble Lord one question?

1247
Is he saying that only parts of Section 2 are mandatory, and not the whole?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said that there was nothing in Section 2 that was mandatory; this particular part is.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords, I asked whether it was; I thank the noble Lord.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the survey has shown that when it comes to wireless and television there is very little unmet need; 94 per cent. of the handicapped have radio, and 89 per cent. have television. There are, of course, some who cannot use either radio or television because they are deaf or blind. The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, asked me about holidays for the handicapped. The D.H.S.S. Social Science Research Unit has carried out a special study of local authority schemes, and the Department expects to issue a circular later this year which, I feel confident, will answer all the other questions which the noble Baroness asked about that.
There has been a lot of concern about telephones. The fact of the matter is that if this provision were made mandatory and telephones were provided for all those who needed them, it would cost some £12½ million. Given £12½. million to spend across this whole field, I do not believe that any noble Lord would feel that it would be right to spend it all on telephones. The problem—and it is one that local authorities have to face—is how to make the best use of all the resources that are now available to them. I do not think that at this stage one can do better than proceed with the register, and then we can see the needs more clearly. There will, of course, be handicapped for whom it would be appropriate to provide telephones.
My Lords, I turn now to Section 4, which relates to premises. In answer to a question which I believe was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, I think it would be true to say that attention is now drawn to this section with every planning permision given for a relevant building that is to say, a building to which the public have access. Regarding Government buildings—this point was raised
1248
by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw—a circular drawing attention to the provisions of the Act and referring to the available design guides was issued to all the Department of the Environment's design staff in December, 1970. In new Crown buildings for instance, courts— which are visited by the public, the Department makes suitable provision where it is practicable and reasonable to do so, for disabled people to enter and leave the building. Care is taken to ensure ease of movement inside; lift controls are positioned so that they may be reached from a wheelchair, and so on. Again in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Craw-show, a circular to public transport operators is now being prepared. It is proposed that this should draw attention to the special needs of disabled travellers, and to suggestions made by the associations for the disabled. The Department intend shortly to discuss the form of this circular with representatives of the chronic sick and disabled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Mon, asked me about schools and the cost of making them accessible to the disabled. The cost of building this accessibility into new buildings is negligible if thought is given at the design stage. So far as alterations to buildings go, if and when any applications are received for extra allocations for minor works, they will be considered on their merits. Lady Masham also asked about the separation of the younger from older patients in hospital. As my noble friend said, the Secretary of State has made available an additional £3 million over the four years beginning April 1, 1971, specifically for the provision of special units for the younger chronic sick. Of itself, this is expected to make a significant contribution to the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also was interested in this aspect. If I may, I will write to him about the other points concerned with rehabilitation which he raised. On the question of existing residential accommodation other than hospitals, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Mon, would like to know that as part of the necessary measures to fill some of the gaps left, a census of residences, staff and buildings providing residential accommodation for the elderly and the mentally

1249
and physically handicapped was undertaken last year, and the results of that are still being processed.
I turn briefly to Section 20. Here I think it is known that the Ministry of Transport and Industries in my Department made regulations to give effect to the provisions of Section 20 on September 26 and 28, 1970. All the representatives of the disabled have been generous in their tributes to the Department for the speed with which the regulations were made and for the consultations which preceded them. The question of the provision of vehicles for the disabled, including all-weather wheelchairs designed to operate indoors and to be taken out of doors, is still being reviewed by the Department of Health and Social Security. On the question of badges, two sets of regulations are necessary. Consultations are almost complete and regulations should he made in a few weeks' time. A circular is also needed to explain the scheme in detail, and that will be issued to local authorities when the regulations are ready.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, for what he said on Section 22 of the Act. I think he was the only noble Lord to speak of this subject. My noble friend Lord Aberdare will have what he said very much in mind when he comes to prepare the first report called for under this section, and I think that he would like me to thank the noble Lord for helping him well on his way towards the writing of that report. On Section 24, the Department of Health and Social Security are consulting widely among bodies and individuals working in this field of hearing research, which is very complex, and a report will be presented to the Medical Research Council, as required under the section, when consultations are complete. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked me about Section 25, which deals with the education of the deaf-blind. A circular asking local authorities to review the provision for deaf-blind available in their areas and to supply details of the special provision made his been sent out. Most authorities have replied but not all.
Several noble Lords spoke on Section 26 on autistic children and we are par-
1250
ticularly grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, for her contribution. The Department of Education and Science intend shortly to issue a circular of guidance to local education authorities on special education for autistic children, which will deal both with educational methods and staffing and will give advice on placement of school leavers. Information will be required on numbers and present arrangements for autistic children. Further information will soon be available, probably in 1972, as the result of a comparative study by Dr. Michael Rutter, of three units in the London area which employ distinctive approaches to the education of autistic children. The Secretary of State received a deputation from the National Autistic Society, who presented a memorandum on the further provisions they thought necessary for autistic children. The meeting provided a useful opportunity for the exchange of ideas, and Ministers will be giving further consideration to some of the specific points raised.
I am sorry that this speech is so long, but I think that I am near the end of the Act. On Section 27, colleges of education are giving increasing emphasis to the teaching of reading, and most primary and infant school teachers are aware of the need for early detection of reading handicaps. The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, asked me about schizophrenia of middle age. The Department of Health and Social Security has in preparation a memorandum giving advice to hospital authorities, revising and bringing up to date existing advice on hospital services for the mentally ill, including guidance on linking hospital services with the community services of local authorities and with general practitioners. Departmental policy has been to encourage the provision of psychiatric units in general hospitals, and the continuation of this process, together with the planned development of community supporting services by local authority social service departments, should give the mentally ill persons of all ages a fully comprehensive service.
At the beginning of this debate the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, thought that there would be some fall-out. I do not think that sufficient recognition has been given during the debate to what a flood of financial benefits is already falling. There is some £30 million per

1251
annum invalidity allowance and attendance allowance; and £1 a week, in round terms, for old age pensioners from next September. Looking at the hospital services, there is £3 million for special provisions for the young chronic sick, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and many others mentioned. There is a considerable increase in hospital services for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly, including many of the disabled. There is £90 million capital and £105 million revenue expenditure annually, and, on top of that, the local authorities have capital loan sanctions which will enable them to provide upwards of 150 new centres of various kinds. They have a 12 per cent. increase this year and a 12 par cent. increase in addition to that next year in rate support grant, and on ton of that an extra £11 million over two years to improve local authority health and social services, including the cost of services provided under Section 2 of this Act.
Far from the central Government not giving a lead. there has been an absolute cascade of circulars and advice. There are circulars on housing needs of the disabled, on the design of Government buildings, to health and welfare authorities on the provision of services under Section 2, to local education authorities about teaching deaf, blind, autistic and dyslexic children. We are not stopping there. There is a circular, with attendant regulations, coming out on badges for the disabled; circulars on teaching autistic children; to public transport operators on holidays for the handicapped, and a circular on home helps. There is the first report under Section 22 of the Act and, in addition, another circular on the operation of Section 1; and there is this survey as well. We are not, immediately on top of all that, going to add a lot of circulars for local authorities to have to deal with.
I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, reminded us that in place of the separate and splintered local authority social services we had a year ago, we now have a freshly reorganised set of integrated social service departments in all the local authorities, which have just come under their new directors. The next step, starting in earnest when Section 1 of this Act
1252
comes into force this October, is for every local authority—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell —to take action to make its own assessment of the needs of the handicapped that have to be met in its own area, to form its own judgment of how best to progress and advance, to apply the fruits of this very valuable and useful service to its own area, to deploy its new staff, to make the most of the increased cash benefits which have been made available and to involve the ever-ready voluntary efforts which were so properly brought to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, in his admirable maiden speech. Local authorities have to do all this to meet the needs in their own areas to the best effect. Those in local government whose duty it is now to give effect to this Act will be most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for the opportunity this debate has given them to bring this wide and diffuse problem into sharper focus and to help us all to see more clearly what the next steps should be.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask just one question, which is rather important? Could the noble Lord see to it that this important information reaches the doctors of this country, either direct from his Department or perhaps sent out by local authorities—because the doctors are in touch with the patients.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. I will certainly see that that is done where appropriate.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to thank all who have taken part in this debate. The fact that there are still so many people here shows the interest in it. There has been a fund of goodwill towards disabled people shown from all sides of the House, but it is clear that we have a lot of homework to do to ensure that this Act is implemented in the way that Parliament wants. We shall have another opportunity to come back to it when the Secretary of State issues his annual report on research and development, which I understand will be later this year. We will keep the pressure up. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: ADMISSION CHARGES
8.3 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consultation took place with the trustees of the national museums and galleries concerning admission charges prior to the publication of Cmnd. 4676, and how far the proposed charges have taken into consideration the. known views of trustees. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity of clarifying a number of issues of immense importance concerning the future of our great national institutions, our museums and galleries. The specific question I am asking is how far the trustees have been consulted and how far the proposals concerning admission charges meet with their approval. In asking this question, I am encouraged by the statement in the White Paper which says that the scheme of charges is to be discussed with the trustees of the institutions concerned. I think it is very wise that we should approach this problem in this temperate manner.
It is absolutely essential that we should pay proper respect to the relationships between the Government, political Ministers and the distinguished men and women who serve as trustees of our great museums and galleries. We know perfectly well that it would be impossible for us to have the privilege of recruiting their services unless Governments, whatever their complexion, were willing to pay proper respect to their point of view. There is no such thing as trustees dictating to the Government, or the Government and Ministers dictating to trustees. We have in this country a very delicate, a very sophisticated, system which has worked until the present time and which I hope will continue to work. We consult one another; we make tentative approaches to one another, and almost without exception we end by having the right people doing the right job.
I have some experience of this, because there was a great hullaballoo during the time of the previous Government, when the Trustees of the British Museum expressed dislike of the proposals that had been made regarding
1254
the Museum's future. I was not in your Lordships' House at that time, but you will remember that the language used by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, who was Chairman of the Trustees, was not exactly temperate—in fact he was spitting blood all over your Lordships' Benches. He was extremely angry—and I make no complaint about that, because it is only people who are deeply concerned who get things done—but I do not think I exaggerate when I say that he was rather less than courteous to my friend and colleague, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mr. Gordon Walker, in particular, and to the Government in general. Of course, a petty-minded Government might have been antagonised by the vehemence of the attack made upon them, but instead the Government said: " The Trustees are obviously unhappy: let us have another look at those proposals."
It is no secret that it was largely in response to the obvious concern of responsible trustees that the Dainton Corn-mince was set up. When the Dainton Report came out, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, my colleague and friend, Mr. Edward Short, and I, who at that time had delegated responsibility, were delighted with its main aspects. Before the end of the last Parliament we were able to have the views of the Trustees of the British Museum respected, and we were able to work out a National Library scheme, affecting the museums, which met with their support. As the noble Viscount the Paymaster General well knows, when his fellow Trustees suggested that he was the most suitable person to be chairman, I at once agreed. I had delegated responsibility from the Prime Minister, and it never occurred to me that I need further consult anybody at all, because I knew how deeply the Paymaster General was concerned and how knowledgeable he was about the British Museum. I believed he was the ideal person to be chairman.
Let me repeat, we had a very big row, affecting relationships between the Government and the Trustees, specifically concerning the future of the British Museum, about which we all care so deeply. The end was satisfactory. But what astonishes me is that in the present

1255
Parliament I have been personally approached by so many distinguished people who are opposed to charges—there is no secret about this, because it is on record—but their views are brushed aside. The majority of the Trustees and Directors of the Tate are totally opposed to gallery charges; the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery are opposed; a majority of the Trustees of the British Museum, with one or two exceptions, are opposed—and no one who heard the speech made by Lord Trevelyan on an earlier occasion could have had any doubt as to what was in their minds. The Victoria and Albert Museum is also concerned, it is directly responsible to a Government department. The views of Sir John Pope-Hennessy, though not publicly stated as he is a public servant, are also known. The Trustees and the directors of great museums and galleries almost without exception, are opposed to charges.
Then we move from the Trustees and the directors to the people who have given us the great treasures they contain. I discussed this aspect the other day with my beloved friend Henry Moore, who has given work of immense value not only to the Tate, but to other national institutions. We were discussing Turner's will. Of course the lawyers can quibble about Turner's will and its terms, but I have the authority of Henry Moore to assure your Lordships that, so far as he and others of his calibre are concerned, there is no doubt that when Turner gave his great gifts to the nation he gave them so that the poorest and the least privileged among us would have free access to them. When we look at our great national galleries we find that almost without exception they are gifts, not to some of us but to all of us, from great patrons of the past. When we look at the contents of our great museums and galleries, we find again that so much has been given by patrons. They were giving, those not to people who were especially privileged, but because they had a deep sense of social responsibility and wanted everyone to enjoy them.
Now let me move from the great patrons of the past to contemporary painters, from David Hockey to Francis Bacon. They are opposed to charges. We talk about the generation gap. There
1256
is no generation gap among artists, so far as these things are concerned. Do none of these matter—the creative artists of the past; the artists of the present; those who have built the museums; those who have given donations to the museums? For one person that the Paymaster General can call in evidence on his side in this distinguished company, I can assure him I can call a hundred who are passionately opposed to the imposition of charges.
I come now to the charges themselves. One of the most insulting parts of those charges is that they are to be doubled during the holiday months of July and August. I should like to ask the Paymaster General a specific question. Is the purpose of doubling charges in the holiday months of July and August in order to keep the natives out? This has been suggested in sections of the Press. As we all know, the great majority of people cannot choose when they have their holidays but have to accept them when they come along. From all over this country—because among the natives I am including the Scots, Welsh and Irish, as well as the English—many people come during the only time in the year when they have an opportunity to see the greatest of our national galleries and museums. When they come, instead of paying 2s., which is bad enough, they are going to be asked to pay 4s.—or, if I can bring myself up to date and use the modern term, 20p.—for an adult; and for father and mother that is 40p.; or 8s., in old-fashioned terms. I beg the Paymaster General not to assume that 8s. does not matter. Perhaps I might have the attention of the Paymaster General. I hope that my figure is correct. I do not know whether he wants to challenge it. The White Paper says:
"The charge for adults will be 10p except in the months of July and August when the charge will be 20p."
Does the Paymaster General agree?
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that the charge will be doubled in July and August, and this is true. I thought it would be a good thing to explain that when I come to speak, but if she wants me to explain it now, I will.
BARONESS LEE or ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I am at the Paymaster General's service. If he would like to explain it now. I shall be glad to hear his explanation.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords there are now a number of our institutions which double their charges in the summer. As regards the 18 national museums, 26 per cent. of the total attendances come in those two months, and in those two months there is at some of the larger ones serious over-crowding during certain parts of the day. So there is a sensible administrative reason, which has been found in other institutions in this country, for trying to stagger visits. There is a second reason why we have to double the charge—I am sorry to have to go into this at some length: I had hoped to keep it for my speech. The second reason is that we are determined to keep the basic charge down to 10p. We cannot do that if we charge 10p through the most popular months. I reckon that it is far more in the interests of the public that we should secure the £1 million net that we want by doubling the charge during the period when over-crowding is already a problem, rather than have a higher basic rate throughout the year.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I thank the Paymaster General for the courtesy of his explanation, but I am afraid that I am totally unconvinced by it. We should rejoice in the fact that we have an increasing number of people who want to enjoy our museums and galleries, and especially that there are an increasing number of young people, in particular, because of the improved education in schools, who want to do so. But to say that the way we are going to select those who shall have admission, and those who shall not, is on the basis of those who can afford to pay is, I think, a most barbaric and uncivilised way of dealing with one of the most sensitive fields in national life.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it may be of interest to the noble Baroness to know that the Tower of London, Hampton Court and Edinburgh Castle double the charge in the summer, all for perfectly sound reasons. It is not that we do not want to have increasing crowds of children, or visitors of any other age;
1258
but it really does make sense to try not to spoil visits by overcrowding.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I think that the Tower of London is a splendid place, and I have a special affection for Edinburgh Castle. But I hope that the Paymaster General is not putting even Edinburgh Castle or the Tower of London on the same basis as the National Gallery, the Victoria and Albert, the Tate or any of our great museums. The essence of what I am saying is that these great national institutions are an integral part of our educational system, in the field of both adult education, and children at the sensitive growing age and the teenage.
If the Paymaster General could say to me that he was going to ensure that in the summer months those great galleries would be open later in the evening, that they would he open on Sunday forenoon, I should be very happy. I tried to get them open on Sunday forenoon. I did get a little more money, but not as much as I wanted. I wish I could have got enough staff and enough money. That, I think, is the civilised answer: that we should have longer hours of opening. I have been down to the great museums in Rome at midnight. So there are answers, if we really want to encourage our people in civilised pursuits. We could have later opening in the evenings in the holiday months, and on Sunday mornings in the summer. But to say that we are going to select on the basis of allowing those who can afford to pay to enter, and keeping out those who cannot, seems to me to be sheer barbarism. I am afraid that I cannot accept this. In my view one of the most insulting proposals of all is the doubling of the charges. I hope that we have more pride in our country and in our future than to think we are merely going to be an " old-fashioned museum ". We want to welcome our guests from abroad; we want them to have every possible amenity. But I hope that, above all, we shall be concerned to see that our own people have these opportunities.
I do not want to keep the House too long, but a great deal in the White Paper is very vague. For instance, who is a student? I entirely agree with the statement made by Professor Grimes, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London, when he speaks of

1259
the help which is given by intelligent amateurs who consult national and local authority museums and can be of great service to archieology and national science, although they may not be registered students. Who are the students who are to get the special advantages? What is going to happen about those who are not registered students, who have finished their courses and who are earning their living? They may be young teachers; they may be unemployed; they may be in industrial design. But the time when it is most necessary for them to have free access to our museums and galleries is in their early years, when they are earning their living and, very often, are young married people. One may say, " Well let them pay for a season ticket." But the idea of a season ticket is a very dangerous idea because a nation grows on new beginnings. A nation grows by encouraging those who have not yet known the great experiences of the Arts to make a casual visit to an art gallery. Of course someone who is professionally interested will make any kind of sacrifice if need be in order to get a season ticket. But what about all the others?
I can remember that when I came to London as a young Member of Parliament I could not have afforded the charges to go into museums and galleries. But there was one picture in the National Gallery which was " mine ". I do not know why, but there was an El Greco there, and I sometimes went to look at that. and at nothing else. Maybe I liked the theme of Christ chasing the moneychangers out of the temple. I was not pretending to be a great æsthete. It may have been the wonderful El Greco colours which attracted me; it may have been the flow of the robes. I do not know why, but that picture just mattered to me, and it was " my " picture. But that did not mean I was excluding anyone else who wanted to look at it from doing so. So I ask the Paymaster General to believe that for many young people and many impressionable people this matter is important.
When we leave the young we come to people who may have had a pretty hard life. They may not have made a lot of money; they may not have been in the
1260
" rat race ". But the grace of their life has been that they have loved beautiful things and look forward to enjoying them in their older years. I hope that the Paymaster General will realise the discouragement that paying 10p. or even 5p, can be to people who are living on retirement pensions. It seems to me that the essence of the proposal to charge is its lack of compassion, its vulgarity.
Then we come to the reasons which so far the Paymaster General has given for his policy: that he must make these charges in order to get enough money to pay for a building programme. If he turns to the White Paper he will see that in paragraph 4 it is stated that the previous Government announced on May 22, 1968, an extension of the building programme for the national museums and galleries from an original figure of £5½ million to a total of £8·95 million. That means that three years ago, in May, 1968, the previous Government announced almost £9 million as a figure for a forward building programme. I hope that no one is going to assume that that figure would still have been about £9 million if the previous Government were still in office, because I can assure the Paymaster General that not only would proper arrangements have been made to take into account increases in the cost of living but I was already negotiating with my colleagues about an upward trend. We did this all the time; and we had to do it, because I hope your Lordships understand that before 1964 we had 13 lean years; we had 13 years of Tory Administration in which the neglect of building for our museums and galleries was a national scandal. For that reason, as Minister with responsibility in this connection for six years, I had to keep ungrading the amount allotted to the Arts Council. And as the Paymaster General knows, even to stand still you have to get more money. I should be delighted to know, not just that he is prepared to continue what was agreed in the previous Parliament—although I am certainly grateful that our plans are not being set aside in regard to the National Library and the British Museum, and much else—but what are the new plans. It is important that we should spend a great deal more on fabric, on preservation, and many other aspects of our museums and galleries. The forward planning of the last

1261
Government was that all this and a great deal more should be done.
These are no idle words, my Lords. A Government can be tested, not by their former promises, such as many of the Election promises of Members opposite about the cost of living and a great deal else; not so much by what they say they are going to do, but by the record of what they actually do. I was very proud to serve in a Government which year by year sought to give higher priority to the Arts over the whole field; and I was very much concerned about the neglect of our local museums and national museums. So I hope the Paymaster General will not say in your Lordships' House that he is going to justify this vulgar attack on the poor in seeking to keep them out of our museums and galleries in order that he should raise a small percentage of the cost of maintaining buildings.
My final word, my Lords, is to say that buildings are important. Ask any of our young artists and they will tell you how important buildings are. But they will also tell you that they arc not so concerned about buildings as about people. Buildings are important, but people are still more important. Buildings exist for people; people do not exist for buildings. And the most precious of people are our young ones, our young life —and not the young life that is most protected, not those who in their homes and in their schools are getting every encouragement, but those like Henry Moore, who in his youth came down from the coalfields; those like Graham Sutherland, and many other poor boys, who came to London. They found their way to the museums and galleries, and they enriched not only this country but the world with their creative genius. I hope that the Paymaster General will heed what we are trying to say to him in your Lordships' House this evening. He could have a wonderful record as the Minister responsible for the Arts. I wish him every success. But I deeply deplore that he should tarnish his reputation by this mean, contemptible proposal that we should keep out the poorest from our museums and galleries.
8.28 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I sympathise with a great deal of what
1262
the noble Baroness has said, but I do not propose to enter into any Party discussion about this issue. I should like to think that, above all, things such as museums and galleries are completely outside Party politics. I wish to pitch straight into the debate which has already begun about this vexed question of doubling of charges in July and August. I can see both sides of this question. I can certainly see the noble Baroness's side, and I can see the Minister's point about overcrowding in these two particular months. But there is another way of dealing with overcrowding, apart from raising the charges, and that is simply to say to people: " We are very sorry but the gallery is full." When one goes to a test match one is quite liable to be told that the ground is full, and one has to put up with it; it is one of the disappointments of life. I do not see why visitors to art galleries should not sometimes have to put up with the same disappointment.
People will be very disturbed at the idea that a working-class couple coming to London in July or August on their holiday are going to find that to go into the National Gallery they have to pay twice the sum that Londoners will have to pay when they visit the National Gallery in any of the other 10 months of the year. I believe this is going to be a very unpopular measure. I should like to put forward another possible scheme for raising the extra money, if the extra money has to be raised, and that is by means of a tourist tax which some countries operate, whereby a tax at a modest rate is collected as an addition to the hotel bills of foreign tourists who stay in those hotels. I imagine that we should exempt the youth hostels and places of that kind, because the people from abroad who patronise hostels are probably not wealthy. I suppose the wealthy foreign tourists who have the luck to stay with friends and do not have to go to hotels would escape the tax, but I would simply say " Good luck!" to them. It might be difficult to persuade the Treasury to earmark this money for expenditure on museums, art galleries and the like and not simply to pour it into the general taxation fund. However, that would not be a problem for me; it would be a problem for the Minister, if he chose

1263
to follow up the suggestion that I have made.
I wonder whether the Government have any designs on the Palace of Westminster as regards the 10p entrance charges. I would agree that the 60,000 visitors a year who come here when Parliament is sitting probably come primarily to see Parliament in action, but I cannot believe that the half-a-million visitors a year who come on Saturdays and Bank Holidays and during the Recesses do not come to see something which to them is akin to a museum or a gallery. Thanks to the blessings of decimalisation, even I have been able to calculate, I think correctly, that at 10p a time half-a-million visitors a year would produce £50,000 a year. Perhaps that suggestion can be looked at by the Government. I know it is a Royal Palace, but there is another Royal Palace which leaps to mind; it is not very far from here and it has within its precincts a nice little art gallery, open to the public. One pays to go in, and it is very good value indeed.
Finally, on the subject of the free bequests of collections, and free museums such as the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, mentioned, and in particular the Turner Bequest. I should like to mention, if I may. the Horniman Museum. I know that it comes under the Greater London Council. but I think it is relevant to this discussion because I see that in paragraph 7 of the White Paper there is to be a review comprising local museums. The Horniman Museum is adorned with a plaque which says that it was:
"…a gift from Frederick John Horniman, M.P.. to the London County Council as representing the people of London…dedicated to the public for ever as a free museum for their recreation, instruction and enjoyment."
For good measure, between the autumn and the spring there are free concerts and free lectures at the Horniman Museum. I hone that institutions of this kind will remain free. I should very much resent the idea that, a bargain having been come to with a benefactor who has since died and is no longer able to renegotiate terms, it will not be adhered to. In particular, I hope it will never be said that because a particular endowment fund has proved to be inadequate because of the rising costs of recent years, that is any sort of excuse
1264
for breaking the original undertaking that the museum or gallery was to be free. Even if it is to become a charge on public funds to some extent, I hope that those institutions which were to be free for all time will remain free for all time.
8.35 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has put before us this question of whether proper consultation has taken place with the trustees of the museums and galleries. I am sure that the noble Viscount will refer specifically to this point, but he will remember that when we discussed this subject on December 16 last the noble Lord, Lord Clark, in a maiden speech, said:
" if the Government wish those of us who are lovers of art to make some sacrifice in order to show our sense of social responsibility at a time of crisis, I would far rather they urged us to deny ourselves new acquisitions than to penalise or alienate those very people who would most wish to be enjoying the inexhaustible riches of our national collections."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/ 12/70; col. 1407.]
The noble Viscount will also recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made a strong speech, indicating the reluctance of the Trustees of the British Museum to have any charge put on entrance to the British Museum.
I should like to raise a further point. This matter has been partially raised already in connection with the Horniman Museum, but I wish to go somewhat further and to point out that in this White Paper we have a reference to provincial museums and galleries. When we had our debate on December 16 last year the suggestion was put forward that the charges were primarily concerned with national museums and galleries and not with the provincial ones, but when we look at this White Paper and see that reference is made in the last paragraph to provinical museums and galleries, and a clear indication is given there that it is the intention of the Government to do something to improve provincial museums and galleries, we may well ask why they should propose to spend any money at all on provincial museums and art galleries if they are not going to suggest that charges should be imposed for admission to those museums and galleries. It would seem a strange thing if the justification for charges to national museums

1265
and galleries is that by doing this the noble Viscount is able to convince his perhaps more Philistine colleagues that they may contribute money towards the improvement of the national museums and galleries, but that when it comes to the provincial museums and galleries some improvement will take place without these charges.
If, on the other hand, it is seriously proposed to recommend that there should be charges on all provincial museums and galleries, then this very point arises: that with many of the provincial galleries the original donors clearly indicated that they wanted the galleries to be open free to the public. That was certainly true of the art gallery in the city in which I live, Newcastle upon Tyne, the Lane Art Gallery, where the money was given early in the century clearly on the understanding—in fact it is specified in the deeds—that the art gallery should be open freely for all to come in. It seems to me that if the noble Viscount is going to start on this course of charging (as he clearly intends to do) for admission to museums and art galleries, he is bound to follow it up throughout the whole country, and we shall have the most retrograde step which has ever been taken in this country with regard to art and art education. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give us some clear indication of the policy of the Government with regard to these provincial museums and art galleries, and I must tell him that his actions in this matter will have a very profound influence throughout the whole country.
8.40 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I rise to my feet with some considerable trepidation and a great sense of humility. I know that we have had a series of long debates on another matter, and therefore I am sorry to detain your Lordships for even a few moments. But I, too, am greatly concerned about the possibility of further extension of charges for museums and galleries. I wonder if I might explain to your Lordships 'the situation which myself I knew. I grew up as a small boy—this was more than 55 years ago: I am now 62—in Poplar, in conditions which to-day are perhaps best forgotten. I went to what was then called an elementary school where we were taught by rote, the multiplication table and so on and so forth. It meant
1266
nothing in intellectual terms at all. If we disobeyed the teacher we were told to sit with our hands on our heads. I need not go " deeper into that '. I had very great good fortune in my early life in Poplar, because before the age of 12 I was sent to St. Michael's Church, in Poplar, where a great saint—I think a very great saint—was in charge as a curate. His name was John Grosser; many of you have heard of him. I learned from John Grosser that there was more in life than these rather horrible material things that I had been experiencing. I confess that I did not understand it all, but I did get a sense of something more of the beauty in life which he, in his inimitable way, conveyed to people through his personality and his faith. I am not claiming to be a highly religious man; I am not. But something happened then, and this was followed by a further experience which happened to me—again I think a lucky one.
Having gone through this elementary school, it was possible for me to go to a good grammar school in Gloucester, Crypt School, with a long tradition. There, of course, conditions were quite different, and I was taught for the first time the elements of logic, the elements of Euclidian geometry. I discovered—and it was a great revelation to me—that the mind could do something. There I began to listen to music, and a great hunger developed (this sounds dreadful, but it is important, I think, that this should be said, because it is a personal experience which is very important to me and, I am sure, will be important to others who can experience it) for what is called, I think quite wrongly, culture: for the things of life which are beautiful in their own right, music and the arts and so on. At 17 I left that school and came back to London and began my search for these things.
I was working, and my wages were in the region of 30s. a week. I had to spend money on board and lodging. I had a little left over, and I used what was left to seek these things I had begun to realise were there. Sadler's Wells was there; the Old Vic was there; the old Queen's Hall was there. You could get into the Promenade Concerts at the Queen's Hall for half-a-crown. You could get into the gallery at Sadler's Wells for, I think,

1267
9d. You could get a tram from Chingford Reach, where I lived, to Bloomsbury for 2d. return. You could do all these things on this very small income. There were the art galleries and the science museums, and these, too, I visited. I could not have done this had there been a charge at that time. It would have been frankly impossible.
Some of your Lordships may be wondering why I am able to tell you this. I am an agricultural man; I come from agricultural people. But I did grow up in Poplar. I had four years after the age of 17 working in London, and during that time, under the influence of John Grosser, as a result of the things I learned from him, I started a boy's club in Walthamstow. We organised athletics for them. I got some help. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Summerskill is not here at the moment, because one of the things we taught them was boxing. But I also managed to get them to go out with me to visit these museums, and I saw how they responded to that and how they liked that. This would not have been possible had there been a charge for admission.
It will be argued, and it is argued, that to-day things are different; that standards of living are higher; that young people leaving school have more money. I do not think this is true. One has to determine priorities, and if it is a question of having to spend money on other things, rather than these things which I think are wrongly termed " culture ", people are likely to spend it mainly in the wrong direction. I cannot understand why an obstacle should be put in the way of those who otherwise might investigate these avenues of perception—the arts and sciences and so on—as I think they would do if they were free. I am not one who believe that one should thrust culture down people's throats. I think there can be a response to culture in people who do not understand that it is in them. In this regard I remember very clearly the discussions we had on the Broadcasting Committee—I was on the Pilkington Committee. I was tempted to speak in the debate the other evening, but I did not. I am conscious of the contribution that Lord Reith made to the cultural development in this country by simply providing, on wireless in the old days, a
1268
sufficient stream of good music; and I know, again from my own experience, that people who previously had had no concern at all for opera and music listened to it almost unconsciously because it was there and learned to love it.
I apologise again for my intervention. I realise that what I am saying may sound awfully hypocritical, condescending and so on. But I feel quite strongly about this matter. I know that many of my friends do, too. I hope that the Government understand what I have been saying in terms of a personal experience. I hope they will understand that this made for an introduction to the more mental things—I hesitate to use the word spiritual things—these mental enjoyments, this better understanding of what is intrinsically good in its own right, which ought not to be thwarted.
8.50 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I shall not delay you long. I agree with what my noble friends have said about the charges, and it seems to me that the economic gain is not really worth the tremendous social loss. But there are two points with which I hope the Minister will deal when he replies. Paragraph 1(a) of Cmnd. 4676 deals with finance and the scheme of entrance charges, and states:
" In consequence the Government are able to provide additional resources for the conservation and display of their collections."
Since, as I understand it, money that goes to the Treasury cannot be earmarked for a particular purpose, I should like, if possible, a clarification of what that statement means. Perhaps we can also have some figures to show the comparison with what is being spent at the moment.
Also. I am a little perplexed about the expanded programme of new building and improvements, which is dealt with in paragraphs 4 and 5. Again, as I understand it, the previous Government had a number of projects under way; and, as well as those that will be completed, I believe that there are still some more. I do not understand how that fits in with the statement in paragraph 5, that
" This represents an increase of the order of 50 per cent. on the programme as previously planned."
Unless my figures are wrong, I should have thought that that was possibly

1269
euphemistic, and that a considerable amount of the £10 million which is projected over the coming five years has already been put into projects. I wonder whether the Minister will clarify both of those points.
8.52 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge for putting down this Question to-night. From this side of the House we make absolutely no apology for raising the matter again so soon after it was debated at the end of last year. My noble friend has received support from my noble friends fjord Wynne-Jones, Lady Birk and Lord Collison, who gave us a very moving speech from his personal experience and told us what free entry meant to him, and indeed what it will mean to so many people until it is terminated in the near future. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has not had much support from his own side to-night. My noble friend Lady Lee reminded us of the proper relationship between a Government and trustees. She also reminded us of the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, made such a notable speech. What my noble friend did not say was that that earlier debate was initiated by the noble Viscount the Paymaster General when he was a trustee of the British Museum. In fact, in the very notable speech that he made at the time, the noble Viscount reminded us of what should be the proper responsibility of trustees and their relationship with Government.
As my noble friend Lady Lee has said, the proposals in this White Paper are opposed by most of the galleries and museums. I should like to ask the noble Viscount about the discussions which the Government have had with the trustees. Paragraph 2 of the White Paper states:
" After careful consideration and talks with the museums and galleries, the Government have prepared a scheme of charges to be discussed with the trustees of the institutions concerned."
I should like to ask the Government for some clarification, because I understand that in certain cases there has been no preliminary discussion except in a very cursory way or at a low level. For example, in the case of the Tate Gallery
1270
a communication was received from the Department at the end of October, inviting comments. The Tate replied in the middle of January, setting out their comments and proposing free entry for certain categories, such as children and retirement pensioners. The White Paper was published this month. I am told that between October and May there was no meeting between the Department and the Tate Director or Trustees.
I should also like to ask the Government about legislation. Paragraph 3 of the White Paper states that legislation will be introduced, and indeed the Government admitted in reply to a Question in the other place on February 4 that they had been advised that legislation would be necessary, particularly in the case of the British Museum. I should like to ask what form this legislation will take. I hear, for example, that any Bill may deal only with general matters, such as obliging the British Museum and the British Museum of Natural History to charge admissions and, in the case of bequests, to override the declared wishes of testators, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, and that the scheme for charges may be dealt with by Statutory Instrument. If that is so, it may mean that Parliament will not have an opportunity to examine the scheme in Committee and that it will have to be considered in toto. I should be glad if the Government would tell the House what they intend to do.
There is, for example, the important question of exemptions which we on this side of the House should want to examine in some detail. In the debate last December the noble Viscount the Paymaster General said:
"…the social service principle of assessing categories of persons who might be hurt by increased charges will be applied to museum charges ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/12/70; col. 1393–4.]
It is therefore all the more disappointing to find in the White Paper that the Government will not make concessions for those less able to look after themselves, such as children not in organised parties, and pensioners. In the case of children, the charge at all times will be 5p., but may I remind the House that the cost to parents of children's visits will be on top of the extra charges for school meals and milk? For families living outside

1271
London, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, the charges will also be added to the fares.
The Museums Association have gone on record, since the White Paper was published, as saying that they are most disappointed that children will not be allowed in free, and the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education, at their annual meeting last January, passed a resolution against the imposition of entry charges. I understand that that was sent to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. It is a pity that so little notice was taken of it. The noble Viscount seems to think that because he once saw some children buying ice-cream outside the Science Museum, all children can afford a 5p. entry fee to a museum, which only shows how surprisingly out of touch he is.
Then there is the question of old-age pensioners. They will not be exempt and will have to pay the full charge. The Paymaster General has said that it would be administratively difficult to exempt them. I do not understand this. Pensioners are allowed in free at the Queen's Gallery. I suggest that the noble Viscount should ask the keeper of the Queen's pictures how it is done there. The recent exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery devoted to Samuel Pepys could be visited by old-age pensioners on production of their pension books. May I ask the Government whether that sensible concession to pensioners will be allowed to continue at the National Portrait Gallery and other galleries, in spite of the White Paper? I should also like to ask the Government about free days. The question of free days is not covered in the White Paper. What line do the Government propose to take with the institutions over these? I know there may be large crowds, particularly if the free day is over the weekend, when many people will go who could not otherwise find the time or the money. But it is important to preserve at least one free day a week—unless, of course, it is the Government's intention to discourage visitors.
My Lords, I have two further questions. I should like to ask the noble Viscount: what will be the position in future of members of supporting societies? There are the members of the British Museum Society, which the noble Viscount him
1272
self started, I think, when he was the distinguished Chairman of the Trustees of the Museum; there are the Friends of the Tate; and, above all, there are the members of the National Arts Collection Fund. I happen to know that the members of the N.A.C.F. particularly feel most strongly about this. Many of them are elderly people living on small, fixed incomes; they supported the fund for many years; and now they will have this annual charge added to their subscription of £2 a year. I think we cannot underestimate what the Fund has done since its inception. It spends about £50,000 a year and has saved many works of art for the nation. One remembers the Holbein's "Duchess of Milan "; the Rokeby Venus "; the Wilton Diptych; more recently the Leonardo Cartoon; and, even more recently than that, the Stubbs painting of the cheetah. None of these might have been saved had it not been for the help of the National Arts Collection Fund. I would ask the Government whether they would consider granting free entry to all N.A.C.F. members, because otherwise I fear that the membership will drop.
My Lords, the White Paper estimates that the yield from these charges will be £1·3 million. Certainly the charges are rather less than we had feared, but I wonder whether the Government are not being too optimistic about the amount of money to be raised. I should like to ask for an assurance that the charges will not be increased after a short period if these do not reach their target. My noble friend Lady Lee has reminded us that the programme envisaged in the second part of the White Paper is a very ambitious one. We congratulate the Government on it, and for carrying on so much of the planning work that was originally initiated by the Labour Government. But, my Lords, heartening as it is to see them carrying on the good work, I cannot agree that money for the arts should be raised in this way. Briefly, this proposal is a tax on art. It is mean and Philistine, and we on this side of the House strongly oppose it.
9.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, this is the second time the Government have been grateful to the Opposition Benches for giving us the opportunity to say a word about our museum policy. It was

1273
the noble Lord, Lord Annan, last December, and to-day it is the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge. I ant very grateful for this, because I feel that 1 have failed in my communications. I am quite certain that what we are doing under the White Paper is for the benefit of the public, and I have not been able so far to impress a number of people who in my opinion are devoted adherents of the museum world, whereas if I could talk to them as I hope noble Lords will allow me to speak now I feel that I could get them round.
The reaction against charging is entirely understandable. Everyone would like to have free at the time of enjoyment that which he really prefers in the art world. I wish that I could go to an artist's studio and pick out without payment the canvasses that I fancy. It would be a joyful convenience for me to be able to ring up Covent Garden any morning and he allotted a couple of free seats for the evening's performance. But then reality breaks in. I was very moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, because he revealed to us what it means to a young man, first making his way in the world, suddenly to have the door of one of the fine arts opened to him. The noble Lord was talking mainly about music. Music, of course, has always been paid for. One of my right honourable friends was saying to me only the other day that one never could get into the gallery for a Prom. without paying for it; and if music is the art which one cared most about, then it was not possible to get it free at the time. For example, the noble Lord was absolutely right in pointing out what the B.B.C. radio did for music when it first became a national service, but, of course, we do have to pay a licence fee for the B.B.C. This would be so if one went through the arts in general; and I think that a little later on I will, if I may, explain why the costs of the visual arts are rising so fast in comparison with the others that if we want to do what we want to do then we shall have—
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way for just a moment? It is true I instanced the fact that one could get music, opera, Shakespeare, Ibsen, and so on, from Sadler's Wells, the Old Vic and the Queen's Hall
1274
very cheaply; and, of course, one has a great regard for the people who made this possible. But I mentioned these things only to indicate that one had suddenly seen a door opening—a door which one was seeking to pass through. Things were there which one did not know were there before, and one wanted to understand them. Music was one of them drama another. The third art—painting architecture, sculptures, science—was free. In my situation and in the situation of many people of my time, we thanked God for Sadler's Wells and their 9d. gallery; but we thanked God, too, for the fact that the museums and art galleries were free. Honestly, it would not have been possible to do anything more with one's 9d., or half-a-crown. That was the point I was making.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I deeply sympathise with the noble Lord's view. If he will hear me out, I think he will see that what we are trying to do is to make this door a great deal wider than it is now for more people than at present to go to the museums. One must consider the future.
If I may, I will first answer the Question that was on the Order Paper put to me by the noble Baroness and taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi: what consultations have we had with the trustees of the various museums before issuing Command 4676. That may seem a short document. We have been at work on it for nearly five months, and during that time we have had separate talks with the officials of the 18 national museums on the practical problems of charging at their particular institutions. These museums and galleries, as your Lordships may well imagine, differ very much one from the other, and therefore these talks could not be conducted very shortly. Those officials will have kept their trustees informed of these talks. The trustees themselves replied to my letter of last November in which I set out the Chancellor's statement about charges and asked for their views.
I said in the debate last December—and I should like to repeat it now—that I quite understand, having been a trustee myself, that it is very disagreeable suddenly to be told of a change like this. But we were in a financial position in which the Government wished to introduce what is called a mini-Budget,

1275
and it was absolutely impossible to consult anybody on any of the various measures that made up that pacakage. I am sorry about that, and I immediately did my best to make the situation all right with the trustees by asking them for their comments. Of the 18 museums consulted, two bodies came out in public flatly against charges, and most of the rest—I think it would be true to say all the rest—offered some comments on some aspect or other of the system as they saw it coming along, but went on to say that they would perefer to wait for a detailed proposal before they gave their final judgment. It was for that reason that we have been gathering together the results of all the talks with the officials and have worked out a scheme for charges which is balanced by an enlarged capital programme and a new initiative in the field of provincial museums. The White Paper has now been put to all trustees and I am ready for discussions with them as soon as they have considered its proposals.
I cannot imagine that anyone expected the trustees to greet the introduction of charges with shouts of joy—and that in spite of the fact that most of them are very well used to charging for special exhibitions 15p, 20p or 30p. I received an invitation this morning from the Victoria and Albert, with a charge of 30p to go to their special exhibition. It is interesting that when museums and galleries do charge these very considerable sums neither the public nor the critics complain. But, of course, charging every day means extra work and trouble not of their making. More important still—and I fully understand their reaction—charging reverses the practice of free entry which most of them have known since they were first connected with the museums. I am much older and I well remember paying to go into the National Gallery and going to see Turner's sunsets at the Tate. Most people in the museum service, at any rate, were not there before the war and do not remember those things.
Those who are working inside the service are almost certain to be against charges if these are brought in, if they consider them in isolation. Supposing the school governors and the teachers were asked whether or not they approved of raising the charge for school meals
1276
or imposing a new charge, say, for a " crash " course in French, one knows perfectly well what the answer would be. And yet, on taking a wider view, some contributions from the user are considered fair and have many times been instituted, even if those in the service were at first opposed in principle. Anyway, the fact is that the British public is thoroughly accustomed both to a subsidy raised from all the taxpayers, and then an individual payment by the user.
To make a museum charge palatable we are told that it is essential to pay the proceeds back to the museum for its own use. This is a very unusual demand. In the Health Service and in further education, at places of historic interest, such as the Tower of London or the Wellington Museum, the charges never have been earmarked and we do not hear of any resentment. In the present case I shall have no difficulty in showing that the increased resources to be made available to museums will over the years much exceed the revenue from charges. Another point that struck me in the controversy is that those who work in the social services are acutely alive to the need for more money to improve their service. They press their own claims as strongly as they can but at the same time they recognise that others have claims, and that the charges in their service help to foot the bill for all. For reasons that I find difficult to explain, a different attitude is adopted by those who oppose museum charges. Either they overlook the need for a great deal more money or they must think that the Government ought to provide whatever the museums require without putting them on a level with the other arts, or with the Health Service, or with areas in the education service. They talk as if there were some great principle at stake. There is none. No divine right of free entry can be claimed when so many institutions already charge. The question is a practical one: will charging help to give a better service to more visitors or not?
Let me turn now to the first part of the White Paper, which describes the proposed system of charges. This is designed to collect £1 million net a year from about 14 million visitors. The most irresponsible argument heard over and over again is that £1 million is a sum

1277
not worth the trouble of collection. It has been this, " Why bother about a million pounds? " attitude which has done so much to raise taxation to the shocking levels of the last few years and to leave such grievous gaps in the social services—so many things left undone that might have been done, or at least started, with husbandry.
Consistent with the objective of raising £1 million net, we were determined to keep the basic charge down to a figure that would be seen to be modest in relation to other forms of personal expenditure, This figure I thought should be 10p. You cannot get much for 10p nowadays. I must explain why, if we go above 10p, it is uneconomical to stop anywhere short of 20p. There is a practical problem here which governs the number of exemptions that we can make. The most economic method of collection when the attendances are large and fluctuating is a combination of automatic machines and a man in a booth. The machines are not clever at giving change; they get various forms of indigestion, and they are expensive to buy and unreliable in operation if asked to handle two or more coins of different sizes. A machine which will issue tickets for 15p is therefore a bad bargain. The basic charge must be either 10p or 20p.
Obviously, exemptions, either no charge at all or half-price, reduce the net revenue, both directly and indirectly, by raising the cost of collection. Any class of visitors who enter free or at reduced rates have to be personally identified. We consider that schoolchildren in organised parties, bona fide students of the museum's collections and readers in the museum's library should be admitted free. To my regret, we felt that it would be difficult to exempt old-age pensioners. The reason is that for some time it has been an accepted principle of finance—I believe on both sides of the House—that the best way to improve the pension is to raise the cash rate and allow pensioners in their very varying circumstances to spend their money as they choose. The Government are following this principle and raising the cash rate for a single person from next September by £1, from £5 to £6, the largest rise ever made in the pension rate.
That is the right way to help all pensioners, but there can be exceptions to
1278
the best of rules, and I should very much like to make one here. We do not know how many visitors to the national museums are pensioners, but there must be a number to whom a reduced charge for entrance and a cheaper season ticket would be of very real importance. and I want to help them. I am going to tell the museums that in our discussions I shall want to put forward this suggestion, and when they come to a conclusion I shall make an announcement. What applies to exemptions in favour of old-age pensioners or children applies still more to free days, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned. If one free day a week were granted, the basic charge would without any question have to be 20p the whole year round. I must also say that we have not found that museum officials are in favour of free days.
I was asked about doubling the charge in July and August. If there is an attendance curve which is right down at the bottom in the winter and goes right up to a peak and then comes down again. it surely makes sense to try to flatten the peak in this way, by having a much cheaper entrance fee in the winter time, as it is pretty well certain that there will be only United Kingdom residents visiting then, and a higher charge in the summer. The Tower of London doubles its charges from April to September; Hampton Court does so from April to September, and Edinburgh Castle charges 50 per cent. more from April to September. It is not a question of saying that all these institutions should be put in the same artistic bracket it is a question of managing the attendance in the best way for those who want to go to them. It was interesting to note that in the many articles which criticised the charging system there was hardly a mention of the season ticket for £1. I think that must be because it does meet the anxieties of a great many people who wrote to us and told us that they visited museums a great many times a year. I am quite sure that the season ticket will be popular. It would make art excellent Christmas present. To give it to one of one's younger friends, in addition to a book token, would be a very acceptable gift.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, whether we could put up a notice saying " House Full ". I think he

1279
will find that all directors of museums would be very unhappy if they had to put up such a notice. What they are doing in America, at least I think in some museums on all the days of the week, is to require that one must book in advance whether one pays or not, because the purpose of the visit is destroyed when the number of people inside the museum exceeds some figure, according to the gallery concerned. I do not favour a tax on tourists, I do not believe that that would be a good way to raise this money. They will, of course, be offered—in addition to the season ticket they can get now, which admits them to historic houses —the same season ticket advantages as anyone of us, by paying an additional £1.
The legislation will be enabling legislation. We do not intend to impose charges on any museum. The reason we must have legislation in respect of the British Museum and the British Museum of Natural History is that it is not quite clear whether the Trustees have the power to charge. If they feel that they need the protection of an enabling measure we will certainly bring it forward. For the same reason we shall have to legislate in respect of some of the Scottish museums but not in respect of any of the others. The trustees of the Wallace Museum, for instance (it is sometimes mentioned in this connection), were given authority to make rules covering charges when they first received a Government grant in 1897.
My Lords, I must say a word about the practical issues behind the decision to charge. The first point is that every visitor who now enters one of our national museums, whether for a whole day or for ten minutes, costs, on average, over £1. This figure is rising fast. A charge, therefore, however small, has the same effect as the money for a ticket for the theatre or a concert, in that it will reduce the amount of subsidy which has to be provided out of general taxation. Secondly—and I rate this even more important—the number of museum visitors is going to increase to the point where overcrowding, at any rate in the summer months, begins to destroy the whole purpose of the visit. Attendances will then be kept down for the very worst of reasons, unless we start now to pro
1280
vide more space in which to accommodate the increase in numbers of visitors. A growth in the numbers of this order follows quite inevitably from the much wider teaching of art in all the schools—a far greater number of young people are interested in these things—and also from the longer and more distant holidays which people here and abroad are now able to take.
My Lords, I find it hard to understand why the opponents of charges are so unwilling to look at the position of museums as it must be in a few years' time. They seem to be interested in the size and composition and demands of the present attendances. If, occasionally they refer to the need for expansion, other than the acquisition of more objects for the collections, they assume that, unlike the other arts, museums will get, and have a right to have, all the public money they want, with no contribution from the user. I must tell them that this is not so. There is no superiority about the visual arts. I think it is perhaps because I, for one, derive even more pleasure from the visual arts than from other fine arts that I realise how much needs to be done to promote the welfare of the museum and to prepare for the crowds that are coming.
I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that without the introduction of charges the capital programme set out in paragraph 6 of the White Paper would not now be authorised to start. This programme does not include the £36 million for rehousing the British Museum Library, although that project will in fact release space for the other collections of the British Museum. In order to set out the White Paper as clearly and, if noble Lords wish, as objectively as possible having regard to the previous programme and the one now, I set out two lists of capital works.
In the pipeline are projects, for which the money is already included in the Vote of the Department of the Environment and of which about £2-t million remains to be paid, which were on the list for which the noble Baroness was responsible. The second list, for which the money is not included in any programme, is of projects that are now authorised to start as soon as they are ready. When there is a large building project, it takes a long

1281
time to get all the plans ready right down to the details, and to be told, when you have the plans ready and you can go to tender, that the money will be there this year and in the succeeding years is something that has not been done before with the schemes in paragraph 6. They amount to approximately £11 million, but in addition there are schemes under £200,000 and a list of minor works that come in every year under £30,000, which cannot now, for obvious reasons, be programmed in detail. I must. however, point out that the smaller works are very important additions to the major projects, because they will enable much space to be better used than it is at present and further they will enable museums who have no big schemes on the stocks at this time to benefit materially from the White Paper. Your Lordships will also realise that the Government are not simply authorising a series of capital sums. When these extensions are completed, more staff will have to be engaged and the operating costs will increase all round. But it is only in this way that we can prepare for the crowds that are coming.
Finally, I turn for a moment to the third part of the White Paper package, which in years to come may well be regarded as the most important. Nothing adequate has ever been done to develop our provincial museums. It is not the fault of the Standing Commission, who are advisory and would be the first to tell us that many of their recommendations have not been acted upon. We are dealing here with a service that is largely controlled by local authorities, and they have had very little encouragement from the Government to improve their museums in the same way as they have built up a really fine public library service. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said, and I can tell him that there is not the slightest intention of influencing any local authority to charge if they do not want to. There are 51 of these museums and galleries who charge now, among them some of the most popular and distinguished museums in local authority hands. But from the centre no encouragement, one way or the other, will be given. There is a clear need, however, to find out about them, and a lot of work to be done. I have therefore invited a distinguished group of people, with wide experience of museums and education, to join me in working
1282
out a policy for provincial museums and galleries in close relation with the national museums. That does not mean the same financial arrangements. What it means is that there is help which the national museums can give to the provincial museums, and vice versa. it may well be a two-way street, but it wants to be much better organised than it is now.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his remark about not intending to force local authorities to charge. Does this mean that local authorities will be able to get Government help in developing the museums and galleries, even if they do not make charges?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The purpose of this committee is to work out a scheme and structure for local museums and concerning some fairly widespread common services. I hope there will be some capital programmes as well. Certainly this Government will not say to them. " You cannot participate in the benefits of this scheme unless you charge." This is a local business, and I believe very firmly in leaving it to local authorities. Some of the best museums in the Provinces, the noble Lord will know, are closely associated with universities. One would not expect, for example, museums at Oxford or Cambridge to charge, because they represent a different kind of museum. The local authorities will be left to make up their own minds on that matter.
I would ask your Lordships, in conclusion, to look at this White Paper as a whole, because those who oppose charges must ask themselves how they would secure the resources for the museums which arc so badly needed. The debate before this one was a wonderful instance of a service for disabled people, with one noble Lord after another making a case that touched all our hearts for providing more money for these people needing special help. There are many services like that, and the problem that I face is, where can I get enough resources to place our museum service, both at the centre and in the Provinces, on a footing which will enable far more people to go and enjoy them, to gain information, to be able to buy reproductions, and so on, which the modern public—especially the young public—wants to do. And whatever we may think about our

1283
favourite museum, that they cannot do now.
I would put it in this way: first, that without charges there would be no capital programme of the size authorised for the national museums, and, secondly, if that example were not set by the programme for the national museums there would be little, if any, chance of getting anything going in the Provinces. For that reason, the White Paper puts in motion a series of developments that in time will be seen to be of lasting benefit to the British public.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I ask one thing before the noble Viscount sits down? I did not wish to intervene earlier. He said, I think, that he could not understand why so many people felt that a saving of just over a million pounds meant so little. If I may say so, that seems to me wrong. Those of us who feel this policy is wrong take this view because it is a question of choice and priorities. Many of us feel that you need not take sixpence off income tax but could use the money in other ways. It is not a case of thinking that a million pounds does not mean anything: it is a case of where you take the million pounds from.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness will help me. This is an argument which is often thrown at me by young art students. They say, " What arc you bothering about a million pounds for? It is such a little sum." Well, with the noble Baroness as my ally, we may scotch that one.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.