HL Deb 27 April 1981 vol 419 cc1089-114

6.56 p.m.

Lord Vaux of Harrowden rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give very serious con- sideration to the appointment of a Minister whose sole duty would be to look after and to co-ordinate the needs of children.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I start the ball rolling, I should like to say a very big "thank you" to all noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have taken the trouble to put their names down on the list of speakers. I feel sure that they are going to give us a lot of support today and I should like to tell them how grateful I am that they have consented to do so. I have asked this Question because of the very basic fact that the children of today will be the citizens of tomorrow and it is on their general well-being, their upbringing, their good health and good characters that this country will have to depend in a very few years from now.

Parents are the people who bear the prime responsibility for the bringing up of their children; but they need a tremendous amount of Government help. This is certainly not a party political matter. I happen to know that there is strong feeling on all sides of the House that this Government and previous Governments do not and have not taken the subject of our children sufficiently seriously. We would appear to have our priorities wrong. We recently spent a large number of days in this House discussing the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. This was time very well spent. About 50 per cent. of this time was taken up discussing the affairs of animals, birds, reptiles, et cetera. This was also time very well spent. We happen to have a Minister to look after all matter pertaining to wildlife and the countryside, which is excellent. But is it not a matter of infinitely greater importance to have a Minister whose sole duty would be to co-ordinate the needs and the rights of our children upon whom we are going to have to rely for the leading and ruling of this country in the years to come?

At the moment, the needs of children in this country are looked after by four different Government departments. There is Health and Social Security, Education and Science, Environment and the Home Office. I am afraid that children today are nobody's particular responsibility. Because of this there is inevitably a certain amount of "passing the buck" between these four departments which I have mentioned. Surely the basic needs of our children are far too important to become the subject of inter-departmental wrangles.

The Government's answer may well be that funds are not available for yet another Minister and his department. May I respectfully suggest that to spend a lot of money on this suggested new Ministry now would reap tremendous dividends in the future. We must keep the children happy and occupied. We must see that they have as many facilities as we can possibly give them for their recreational interests; we must give them more playing fields and select good leaders and organisers for them. Money paid out in support of youth clubs and the National Playing Fields Association, which has many active groups in different parts of this country, would be money well spent and would certainly be repaid very many times. By doing this we will keep young minds off hooliganism and vandalism and in this way the country will be saved many millions of pounds and, please God! it might also save us from another Brixton.

I do not think the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child have been read out in your Lordships' House since the memorable debate of my noble friend Lady Faithfull on the International Year of the Child in 1979 and so I propose to take just under a minute of your Lordships' time to read out these rights so that you may be reminded of them. They are: the right to affection, love and understanding; the right to adequate nutrition and medical care; the right to free education; the right to full opportunity for play and recreation; the right to a name and nationality; the right to special care if handicapped; the right to be among the first to receive relief in times of disaster; the right to learn to be a useful member of society and to develop individual abilities; the right to be brought up in a spirit of peace and universal brotherhood; the right to enjoy these rights regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, national or social origin.

Surely, if we could have a special Minister for Children, there would be far more chance that these rights of the child would be kept in the forefront of deliberations in this House and also of those in another place, with the result that we could have healthier and happier children who might well grow up to be abler and better men and women than our generation, noble Lords included.

7.3 p.m.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Vaux very much for giving us the opportunity to speak on his Unstarred Question this evening. There are so many aspects of this Question that one could tackle but I hope I have never been guilty of the crime of going on at great length in this Chamber and I do not intend to spoil my own record.

It is interesting, looking through the debates we have had in this House, even during this year, to see that there have been debates on industry, on inflation—interminably—and we have had debates on housing, transport, food, pensions, forestry and, as the noble Lord said, wildlife and all kinds of animals. We do not at any stage, as far as I can see, appear to have had during this Session a debate on children.

When we talk about wealth nowadays we talk about oil—that wretched black stuff for which wars are fought and all kinds of terrible crimes are perpetrated—or we talk about gold. But the real wealth of any nation is its citizens and the wealth we are bound to consider, if we are sensible at all, is represented by the children. You have to find a definition for children and I think it is fairly safe to say, rather like the Children and Young Persons' Act, "under 16".

I get the feeling occasionally that, as a society, we do not even like children. We certainly do not make any provision for them in our normal lifestyle. If you are a young mother with two small children, trying to travel across London, you would soon see how much provision is made to assist you to do so. You are very lucky if anyone even helps you on to a bus or gets you up an escalator on the Underground. Try to get a meal for children in a commercial restaurant; they act as if you have brought them some kind of inconvenience. And while they will find you doggie bones and even a lead for your dog to be in a room at the side, it is quite unlikely that they will make any accommodation available for children.

A certain commercial firm have captured the market. Why?—because they have recognised that there are actually millions of these very important small creatures, and they have offered them the kind of service many mothers and fathers have been looking for. Try to travel, even on British Rail: they may give you a half-fare but they do not give you much else. I recall many years ago trying through a women's organisation to get some consideration for women with small babies. We were promised a special coach. Whatever happened to that? So I think that in Western society, and particularly in this country, we do not pay enough attention to our children.

It has been said all too often that we have a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children but we have a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This flows over naturally into the attitudes of Government, both at central and local levels. If you have a pre-school child or a child at school you will probably have to go to the Department of Education and Science. If you have a sick child it may well come under the Department of Health and Social Security. If you have a deprived child it may well come under the same department, and if it is in trouble it may well come under the Home Office. In Scotland or Wales it may come under either of those departments irrespective of whether it is sick, deprived, healthy or indeed in any other condition.

It seems to me that in our Acts of Parliament we have mainly considered our children in a negative sense. The moment the child is in trouble, for some strange reason it becomes a consideration to Governments and to people generally. For example, juvenile crime is constantly debated and we now have a department in a university which is concerned with youth, crime and the community. How much better it would be if that money were spent on considering youth, children and the enjoyment of life: that would probably prevent them from committing crimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said. The negative approach is the one that we almost invariably tackle when we talk about children. We talk about children having accidents and the accident rate and we talk about vandalism. Incidentally, I tried to find some figures on juvenile crime. The one which seemed to me very relevant to the whole series was that in 1978—the last year I have figures for—56,000 offences were committed by young males between the ages of 10 and 14. That is a very serious thing which we should all be looking at it, particularly in the context of a Minister concerned with this age group.

Inevitably, of course, there are several negative Acts concerning children. There is the Children and Young Persons' Act, the Childrens' Act 1975, and of course children are mentioned in the Criminal Justice Act. Here there was a suggestion that there should be an incorporation of a duty on the Secretary of State for Social Services at given times to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Act, and that referred to the Children and Young Persons' Act. I am not sure whether we have had any kind of report. My noble friend nods her head. Whichever Act of Parliament we were supposed to have a report on I cannot recall one coming forward, so it was one of the other Acts and the same question still applies.

I notice that in one report called Fit for the Future in 1976 all sorts of recommendations were made. There it did actually suggest that there should be some kind of co-operation and co-ordination between departments dealing particularly with children. They specified there the Department of Education and the Home Office and I think I am right in saying this was to be laid before Parliament every three years. As it did not start till 1979, the Minister has a very nice get-out there and can say that they are certainly going to do it by 1982.

What is it that we need for our children? First, we need consideration of the fact that they are very much here. We are in the middle of a school holiday—again, my noble friend says not, but this applies in London where they are, in many cases, having a longer holiday—and I notice this because I travel on buses which are frequently filled with these small people going to school. For the past two weeks, the buses have not been filled with these small people. The question that arises is: Where are they? if they are in school, they are at least occupied and their energies are taken up. If they are not in school, what kind of out-of-school projects do we offer them?

There are far too few play centres and playing fields which are open. Indeed—I hate to suggest this to my noble friend on the Front Bench—I have heard wind that Government cuts will affect these adventure playgrounds and some of the other centres, and there will be fewer of them. But what is certainly true is that modern planning of some of the inner city centres does not include the consideration that there was originally for leisure and play centres. If children are left alone—and this is no criticism of the fact that many mothers have to work—the children are there, but their energies are not taken up and there are not the play centres for them.

The movement Fair Play for Children has presented some amazing statistics which show that there are commercial playing fields, schools and all kinds of halls which are closed for more hours in the year than they are open. I should like to suggest that all football clubs and racecourses should be required to offer space for children. Why should all these places be shut up, while children are left to roam the streets? When I was a small girl in London we could play in the streets, but that is not true any more. It would be far too dangerous for children to play in the streets now.

So we have to recognise the fact that we have a number of these small beings who are about in great numbers, which will lead ultimately—as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said in opening—to mischief, if their energies are not taken up and occupied. It is always better to take the constructive point of view, rather than wait until children get into trouble. Incidentally, if the Government say that they cannot afford these things, I would remind them that the figures for keeping a child in borstal are extremely high, and a great deal higher than occupying them so that they do not get into trouble.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, quoted the declaration of the International Year of the Child. I should like to remind your Lordships that in that declaration Governments were urged to expand their efforts at national and community levels to provide lasting improvements for the well-being of their children, with special attention to those in the most vulnerable and particularly disadvantaged groups. I am delighted that we now have an all-party children's group in the House. This is our heritage and if we do not do more for children we shall certainly live to regret it. I do not expect that the Minister will lift all our hearts by saying that he will appoint a Minister for Children. I can only say to him that we shall certainly return to this subject again and again, because it is something which is very near to the hearts of many of us.

7.14 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for asking this fascinating Question. I am grateful to him for the clarity of his speech, and I am particularly grateful to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the brevity of both of their speeches. I only hope that I can be both as clear and as brief. I find being brief on something which interests me as much as this a little difficult, but I will do my best. I must correct one point which the noble Lord made in his opening speech..Animals are not controlled by one ministry, but by two—the Ministry of Agriculture and the Home Office—and exactly the same problems arise there as arise whenever there are two Ministries. I just throw that in in passing.

The objective behind the noble Lord's speech is clearly right. My own view is that we want not a new Minister, but a Minister with specific duties to coordinate certain things. If you started with that, you would go a long way. For example, education is, or should be, the positive side that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was talking about of looking after children. I do not think there is very much of a failure of co-ordination between education and the other ministries. But the DHSS and the Home Office are dealing with two quite separate troubles which children get into. One is through bad homes and parents in difficulties, and the other is through the child itself breaking the law. I shall give some examples of this in a minute or two, to show that there is a real need here for co-ordination which, at the moment, does not exist.

It is nice to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who always takes such a positive line. It is also nice to be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who knows a great deal about this subject and who tells me that she is not going to touch on the point that I shall try to make. So I shall confine myself to that, which is children in trouble through no fault of their own, who are the responsibility of the DHSS; and children in trouble through their own fault, who are the responsibility of the Home Office.

There has always been a certain amount of difficulty between these two departments. The worst example, I suppose, was, I think, 15 years ago when a very important report on alcoholism came out, saying that there should be drying-out centres in every area. That was passed from the Home Office to the DHSS and at the end of 15 years there are three centres, one of which is being closed. This is because they were done far too elaborately. What was wanted was something very simple. A co-ordinating Minister, with absolute responsibility for seeing that these things made sense, could have helped there.

When I was in Northern Ireland, my colleague Roland Moyle and I were responsible for instigating the Black Report on legislation and services for children in Northern Ireland. It is a most progressive report. I shall not give details of it here, but it has really been very important. It took the line, in which I think nearly all of us believe, that in the case of children brought before the court for breaking the law there must be a definite element of punishment for persistent or serious young offenders. They should have only determinate sentences—at the moment, borstal sentences are indeterminate—and a determined effort should be made to commit far fewer young offenders to institutional care. That report was made to the present Government after we had gone out of Government, and my successor in the same job, the honourable gentleman Mr. Alison, has accepted that report in its entirety for Northern Ireland. It is high time that something of the kind was introduced here and nothing of the kind has been introduced; I am not aware that there is any serious thinking about it.

I should like to give two examples to illustrate my point and I need not do it at great length. In the Inter-Parliamentary Penal Affairs Committee, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and I are members, we are getting a lot of information about this element, and the first example which I want to talk about is intermediate treatment schemes. These schemes are financed by local authorities. But central Government, in the form of the Home Office, finances borstals and detention centres. This must mean that if a local authority can push somebody off to a borstal it saves the cost of that child in its intermediate treatment centre. So long as one department can say, "No, it's yours" and the other department can say, "No, it's yours", you have a very difficult situation.

At the moment it is patchy and inadequate. As a result, in the last decade there has been a big rise in the number of youngsters sent to borstals and detention centres. The Prison and Borstal Governors branch and the British Association of Social Workers have both gone so far as to suggest that local authorities should be required to pay for the upkeep of juveniles who, in order to avoid this cost, are sent from their areas to penal establishments. This is a clear case of conflict of interest where the child can be a shuttlecock and where the people concerned have no direct right to do one thing or the other.

The next problem is that of care orders. As noble Lords know, care orders are available in both civil and criminal proceedings. A care order commits a child to a local authority in loco parentis. The local authority then has to decide how to deal with the child. The choices are, roughly speaking, supervision at home, fostering, a community home, or a community home with education—what are called CHEs. In civil proceedings many children are supervised at home. In criminal proceedings nearly all are residential care orders. The latest figures, which are two years old how, show that 6,700 young people were in community homes and 1,700-odd in borstals or detention centres. The figures are very much the same today. Borstal sentences usually last nine months and detention centre sentences six weeks, but care orders for a criminal offence may last for over a year. Those orders are not ended on a determinate basis. They are ended when somewhere else which seems to be suitable is found for the child. The child inevitably misunderstands that and thinks that he is getting a worse sentence than his colleague who goes to a detention centre and comes out after six weeks.

Not much more discussion is needed to show that this is a very unsatisfactory situation. It can be effective only if somebody at the very top is supervising these orders case by case. What would satisfy us would be if the noble Lord who is to reply could give a promise that something of this kind can be done. The most important point of all, which all of us here believe in, is not to break up families if we can avoid doing so. Residential care orders should be made very rarely indeed. In the case of ethnic minority families, particularly Caribbean or African families which have, very largely, sanctions within their own groups, residential care orders should be used extremely sparingly. However, I am not sure that this is what happens.

I have already spoken for longer than anybody else, which is humiliating. However, I have mentioned two cases where, in the interests of the child, it is perfectly clear that more co-ordination is required between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office. I hope we shall hear that something positive can be done about it.

7.24 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, is to be congratulated for giving thought to the needs of children and for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. Indeed, in so doing, he is almost unique.

It is a sad reflection on our country that, as has been said by other speakers—notably the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—in the House of Westminster we give so little thought to the needs of our children as compared with other sectors of our society, not to speak of the birds and the beasties and things which go bumpety-bumb in the night. I refer to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which was of absorbing interest. I only wish that the interests of children could arouse such commitment. No political party at the last election mentioned the needs of children in its manifesto. The Conservative Party manifesto did mention the needs of the family, but in their latest publication, Care in Action, which is a handbook of policies and priorities for health and personal social services in England, no mention is made of families or children. Both major parties had a section on animal welfare.

During the International Year of the Child, there were 5,000 oral Questions and 30,000 written Questions in another place. Among those questions there were no significant questions on the well-being of children other than questions on child benefits, immigration, lead in petrol and population control. These figures are to be found in the book published by the International Year of the Child Trust, The Continuing Challenge, by Helen Holden. Therefore, we are grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has shown regard for children. He made his maiden speech in the debate on the International Year of the Child, and I am glad that he is a member of the newly formed all-party Paliamentary group for children to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred.

I agree with the spirit in which the Question is asked, but I am not quite sure of the practicality of a Minister for Children. I would, however, say that members of the public and organisations have great difficulty in knowing to whom they can appeal, particularly when their concern is the responsibility of one or more ministries. It seems that there needs to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, a monitoring system.

Children have been discussed under the heading of education and we are particularly glad that the Special Educational Needs of Children Bill is now before another place. Children are discussed under the heading of social services, but obliquely. Housing and supplementary benefits play their part. As Children's Officer for Oxford city, I remember the members of the Seebohm Committee visiting Oxford and the late town clerk of Coventry saying at that time, "We want to see that as good a service is given to the elderly and disabled as is given to children". In those days there was a children's department at the Home Office, with an inspectorate, and there were children's departments in local authorities. I am not suggesting, however, that we should return to that structure, because I support the social services departments of local authorities which were set up as a result of the Seebohm Committee Report.

What are the concerns today in child care? They are, sadly, too numerous to list. I list but a few. First, we in this country have no policy for the care of our children under five. A book has been written which is called The Great Under-Five Muddle, based on a piece of research which was carried out at Bath University. I suggest that the reason for this is that the responsibility falls between the Departments of Health and Social Security, Education and Employment. Then there has been failure to implement the Children Act 1975. We are thus depriving a number of children, many of them handicapped, of the opportunity of being placed for adoption. This cannot be right, not only in terms of compassion for these children throughout their childhood and into their adult lives, but also for financial reasons. It has been reckoned that 100 children placed for adoption at the age of seven can save the country £2 million. On two counts, therefore, the Act should be fully implemented.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has referred to the number of children in custodial care and he referred particularly to those children who are offenders. I would suggest that also there are a number of children in care for social reasons, for reasons of poverty, for reasons of poor housing, and these are the children known as the fourth world children about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will speak later. These children are in care through poverty and poor housing and social deprivation. Why has this country more children in custodial care than any other country in the EEC? Can this be right? Then we have low foster parent payments. We ask foster parents to care for children at a low cost but we are prepared to pay £100, £150 or £250 for them to be in residential care.

In the arena of the needs of children there are the inevitable dual responsibilities which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. They are overlapping and interlinking. Furthermore there needs to be a positive awareness of the needs of children. May I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the present administrative confusion? I suggest two models: either that at the Department of Health and Social Security there should be a children's branch staffed by social workers experienced in child care, and that in that branch there should be a co-ordinating committee on which there would be representatives from other relevant ministries and from the voluntary sector.

Alternatively, would Her Majesty's Government consider the Swedish system which is being researched at present by the Children's Legal Centre? As I understand it, Sweden has a children's ombudsman who is independent of the Government and who has statutory powers to look at and investigate all bureaucratic decisions at national and local level. Under Swedish law an investigation can be as a result of either open information or complaint. Furthermore—and most important—the Swedish children's ombudsman can initiate inquiries and submit and offer recommendations which will benefit the well-being of children, and the Swedish children's ombudsman works outside the bureaucratic system. Could not Her Majesty's Government give thought to an administrative structure which would be of positive benefit to children? If this is done and acted upon then the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, will not have been in vain.

7.33 p.m.

The Countess of Loudoun

My Lords, over the weekend I received my local inspector's report from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—that is for the Burton-on-Trent branch for the period 1st December 1980 to the end of February, 1981. During that period from December to the end of February, 120 new cases were reported to him, involving 298 children of whom 118 were under the age of five years. So, as your Lordships can imagine, I, too, favour any initiative which will promote the interests of children and at first glance the concept of a co-ordinating Minister seems attractive. But let us look for a moment at the present position.

In the Home Office Circulars 238 and 294 of 1970, ministerial responsibility for child care services was transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Security and to the Welsh Office taking effect from the 1st January 1971. These arrangements have worked quite well. They mean that the criminal parts of the law remain in the Home Office, but the caring parts are now largely in the hands of the DHSS. Before this change, health and subnormality were the concern of one Ministry but care and protection proceedings, including the assumption of parental rights, which often involve the question of the mental health of parents and children, were the concern of another Ministry. Thus this change in 1971 removed the disadvantages of the involvement of two Ministries. Is a further sub-division of ministerial responsibility within the DHSS envisaged, so that instead of two Ministers of State there would be three operating under the Secretary of State? It would certainly be a step forward to have a Minister whose function was solely to consider the problems of children.

But there is also the question of expense. This might be quite considerable in setting up Civil Service backup and to some extent possibly overlapping within the DHSS. If there were to be a third Minister of State he would have to step outside the DHSS altogether in order to maintain contact with, or supervision of, education, in which after all normal children spend a large part of their childhood.

There is at the moment some concern about the possible lack of integration between health and education in the grey area dealing with sub-normal children. This problem has been looked at recently by both the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science. I should like your Lordships to consider whether, if money is limited, it might not be better spent in implementing further parts of the Children Act 1975 on which we spent many hours and which is already on the statute book. There is concern over the complete failure (with one small exception) to implement Section 64 of the 1975 Act, which deals with the representation of children in care proceedings where there is, or may be, a conflict of interests between the parents and the child.

The failure to activate most of Section 65 dealing with legal aid for parents in care proceedings and the failure to activate most of Section 58 dealing with guardians ad litem and reports in care proceedings. There is of course also the whole area of the 1975 Act dealing with custodianship, which is totally dormant. In my view, the implementation of Sections 58, 64 and 65 should take priority over custodianship because these are areas in which children are at greatest risk. All things considered, I feel that more individual children would benefit more immediately from the further activation of the 1975 Children Act than from the creation of a new Ministry.

7.38 p.m.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, we are discussing children tonight and before starting my few remarks I feel that I must say how delighted and indeed relieved I am—and I am sure all your Lordships are—that the five children on Dartmoor have been found safe and well. Some of us perhaps have had sleepless nights on their behalf. I am delighted to thank my noble friend Lord Vaux for his speech and for bringing this subject to the attention of the House tonight and also for repeating once again the children's rights—the Charter for Children—so ably put forward during the Year of the Child.

Although at first thought a Minister in sole charge of children would seem to be a good idea, when I came to list the Ministries with which a Minister would have to deal, it was quite clear to me that it would not work. Children are the most important people in our country. Their welfare, their training, their happiness and wellbeing must be the primary concern of the older generations. I have chosen four Ministries—although of course there are others, including that of Environment—to speak about tonight very briefly.

The first is education. I am not going to speak about education itself, but about the problems which I have heard about only too frequently recently of children getting into trouble when they are at school: namely, the escalation of drugs, the escalation of loose living, the escalation of violence in the classrooms and the escalation of truancy. But all these come under the local authority for education.

The second Ministry is the Ministry of Health and Social Services. They look after first of all the disabled children, those children suffering from mental illness and those children suffering fron incurable diseases. Modern medicines have meant that these children live longer and they need special care. Much is done by the Government and by voluntary agencies, but I submit that more needs to be done.

The second facet of the Ministry for Social Services concerns those children to whom other noble Lords have referred, those children in care. This is perhaps the main area in which more help is needed. I am going to ask my noble friend the Minister if he and his department will do all in their power to encourage fostering of children. Some authorities call it boarding out. I have had the opportunity of talking to the head people in two London boroughs. The first is a suburban borough which has at the present time 350 children in care, 40 per cent. of which are fostered; that is 4.67 per 1,000 children. The second borough, which is co-terminous with the first one, has 714 children in care but has 46 per cent. fostered to families, which is 11.92 per 1,000 children in the borough. I was also able to talk today to the head of the Church of England Children's Society, which everyone will know was called the Waifs and Strays. They have just under 60 children in residential care. They have found 297 permanent foster homes for children, long-term permanency; 52 of those children they have placed on behalf of the local authorities.

The increased number of home-finding teams for fostering and adoption is part of the forward-thinking planning of the Church of England Children's Society. These teams, as I understand it, will work with the local authorities for children for whom they can find homes. All the people that I have spoken to have the same goal, to find foster parents for the children who need homes. One officer said to me today that even if the arrangement of fostering broke down the experience, even for a short time, of family life, personal care and individual affection was of incalculable value to each and every child. But this comes under social service departments of local authorities and under the Ministry of Health and Social Services.

The fourth Ministry is transport, because I believe that bad drivers are made, not born, and the earlier we can teach the older children good manners on the road, road sense and the Highway Code, the fewer accidents shall we have involving young people. If in more areas young people could also have a go on a motor-bike or a car on waste ground, under the auspices of those who are interested in the prevention of accidents, I feel sure that their early tuition would also prevent accidents. But, as I say, this comes under the Ministry of Transport.

The next Ministry is the Home Office. Children come under the Home Office if they break the law and come before either a police officer or the juvenile courts. I know that the juvenile bureaux do an excellent job in warning children and their parents of the problems of infringing the law and the consequences of so infringing. I think that the younger children aged between 10 and 12 could benefit more from a wigging by a police officer than from an appearance in court. Juvenile courts have to adjudicate upon those children under 17 who are alleged to have broken the law. It often occurred to me that they did not know what the law was. If we could encourage more police officers to visit schools and communicate with the young before they offend we may see fewer children before us in the courts. But the police come under the Home Office.

In short, my Lords, there are so many Ministries already involved with children and their needs, there are also many voluntary societies who work exclusively for children and their needs, and there are many millions of families who are bringing up their children with love and care, that in my view a Minister whose sole duty would be to look after and co-ordinate the needs of children would seem to be unnecessary.

7.47 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I share the feelings of gratitude already expressed to my noble friend Lord Vaux for giving this House the opportunity to discuss the many problems concerning the needs of children. Let me say straight away that I am not in favour of creating a new Ministry. I know that a Minister exists for the family and for women in Belgium, France and Germany, but I believe that we could achieve much that my noble friend and other speakers, such as my noble friend Lady Macleod, have in mind by the less costly process of making one department of one Ministry responsible for children. I entirely agree that the public are at present confused as to which Ministry is responsible for any particular problem or set of problems concerning children. They do not know with whom they should communicate. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has suggested an alternative idea, which I support wholly, which might be to create—as already exists in Norway and Sweden—an Ombudsman for children. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether these suggestions, and those of other noble Lords, are possibilities.

I wonder how many of your Lordships present today visited the impressive exhibition sponsored by the International ATD Fourth World Movement in Westminster Abbey earlier this month. The Fourth World was identified in the early 'sixties by the International ATD Fourth World Movement as being those parts of any national population that are victims of hard-core and persistent poverty, excluded from their society—be it an industrial, developing or traditional so-called third world society—from generation to generation. Incidentally, just to be helpful, ATD stands for Aide á Toutes Dètresses. The exhibition to which I have already referred consisted of photographs of children in the really bad slum areas of Naples, parts of France, and in England and Scotland. They were marvellous photographs, excellent examples of that old saying, "Every picture tells a tale".

What made the whole exhibition so impressive, moving or pathetic according to one's point of view was that no matter how squalid the surroundings or how ragged the clothes, all the children were smiling—not because they rejoiced in their situation but because, of course, one's natural reaction to having one's photograph taken is to smile. In reality, those children and many others have little to smile about.

The International Year of the Child has drawn the attention of the world to the disparity between the ideals contained in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the failure of even our most sincere efforts to implement those ideals for so many of our children who continue to live in persistent poverty and exclusion. Today in Britain, thousands of children continue to exist, as did their parents and grandparents before them, in slum housing bordering factories and rubbish dumps. How many children do we oblige to grow up in concrete housing blocks; in high-rise developments where their games—because they have nowhere else to go—and their laughter become a nuisance to be suppressed? What right to childhood do any children have in the promiscuity of crowded appartments, where they are bound to share too early their parents' preoccupations?

Last night I watched Esther Rantzen's show on television, "That's Life". One item concerned some council flats in Liverpool which were sodden with condensation, rotten with water, with leaky plumbing and with fungus all over the walls; they were really disgusting. One of the occupants was a mother living with her small daughter who suffered from asthma. The answer given by the council to the request made both by the mother and Esther Rantzen for alternative accommodation, on the grounds that the child's health was deteriorating due to the unhealthy conditions in the flat, was that the occupants were not high enough on the priorities list to be moved. Is this the way our caring society works in 1981?

May I commend to your Lordships an excellent booklet prepared by the ATD Fourth World. In it the children speak for themselves. Get hold of a copy and read the chapter on the child and the environment. Read what the children themselves say in answer to the question, "What would happen if some of the 'rich people' were to move into the homes of the poor?" Read the chapter on holidays—which are, of course, dreams—and those on education and health. It is difficult to speak briefly on such an enormous subject. I have tried to stick to the subject of housing and where it affects children. Therefore, let me stick to the recommendations of the Fourth World White Paper and plead that all family housing, however temporary, should provide adequate standards of space and equipment (in terms of sanitation, lighting, heating, et cetera) and that the right to these basic standards should not be lost in any circumstances—that all temporary accommodation for homeless and evicted families should be equipped with the staff and resources necessary for providing support and practical help with the object being to find a permanent solution to the families' housing needs. Sheltered housing communities should be set up and offered to those families whose difficulties call for long-term and sometimes permanent support. My Lords, I realise that we have a long way to go before we reach Utopia, but it is obvious that even in these difficult times we must press for an improvement in the present unacceptable situation.

7.55 p.m.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, I join in the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden for raising this important problem this evening. I believe that the real problem here is that some of us are tempted to think that the majority of children today are either in care or are going into care, or have problems. In fact, there are a large number of children who are very human and whose behaviour, on the whole, is most acceptable. I am a little sad that there are no representatives on the Bishops' Benches here this evening because I believe the Church has enormous responsibility here and in many cases the Church—and here I speak of all denominations—discharges its responsibilities very well.

If I may quote from another television programme, one has only to watch "Songs of Praise" on Sunday evening and, whether it is being broadcast from a church in Northern Ireland or from one in Cornwall, one sees children's choirs—be they children from state schools, from private schools or representing other organisations—singing quite beautifully and beautifully dressed, really giving a great deal of pleasure to the public at large. This is not to say that all these children come from ordered homes. Some may come from homes in which the parents have split up or where there are other problems of the kind which your Lordships, with far greater experience than I of these problems, will have noticed.

I mention this only because, despite the many problems of the day—one of which is too much watching of the media at times instead of getting out into the fresh air—there is a risk that such problems can be over-magnified. Certainly there are some problems and I want to say just a word or two about the problem of the mentally handicapped. I have not given my noble friend notice of this, but I hope that he would give consideration to this point; there are many children in hospitals of this kind who are not being put to good use. I put that rather crudely and perhaps I should have said that their talents are not being put to sufficiently good use. The provision of a bus or of more wheelchairs for those who suffer from such horrible diseases as muscular dystrophy are being handicapped very often by the lack of central funds. One of the problems about the re-organisation of the National Health Service has been the fact that the general public at large in the areas where these hospitals exist are not sufficiently involved with these children. I mention this in connection with this question because I believe there are so many children who are badly handicapped but who could nevertheless play a much more important role in society if the situation existed where there were the funds and the wherewithal to enable them to use the talents which they undoubtedly have.

The children co-operate considerably in a great number of charitable organisations and activities. In particular I mention sponsored walks for all kinds of worthy causes. I think that too little is made of this and that too little publicity is given to it. Two of my own daughters, at the age of about nine, walked 30 miles for a British Legion cause to raise funds for our county British Legion service. Ours were certainly not the only children; there were children from many walks of life who walked, if not the full 30 miles, a number of miles

Therefore, there is a danger that we tend to regard all children as needing care. There are undoubtedly those who need care, and I think that the question is what should happen here. I have far fewer qualifications to offer a solution here than some other noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken. But it is probably the Department of Health and Social Security which is the most concerned with children, particularly those who suffer any handicap or those who, in their early lives at any rate, need some kind of care.

I join with those who expressed the view that another Ministry as such is not needed, but I believe that within the DHSS one of the Ministers could have far more delegation and discretion as regards the needs of children. By those means I think that we could—and, of course, it will obviously need more Government funds at such time as this can be afforded—overcome many of the problems which exist at present.

8.3 p.m.

Lord De Freyne

My Lords, I welcome this chance to speak on the Question skilfully introduced by my noble friend Lord Vaux on the need for the appointment of a Minister to look after and co-ordinate the needs of children. Although I am not convinced that the actual appointment of a Minister is required, I strongly believe in the need for some liaison between the Ministry concerned and the parent who needs help, guidance and advice from that Ministry. For example, we have seen in the past, and I am afraid even now, the confusion and contradiction between the medical profession and the Department of Education over the subject of dyslexic children, their recognition and the special needs that they have in the field of education.

I am sure that we are all keenly awaiting the Bill, which is coming to us from another place, concerning children with special educational needs. The Warnock Report, which I have here, recommends that these children suffering from specific learning difficulties in reading, writing and spelling, should be given special consideration in early assessment and in devising programmes to meet their requirements. I hope that this Bill will highlight the need of the dyslexic child and once and for all recognise that these children are in great need; that the past difficulties between ministries will eventually fade away, and that the need for liaison between the DHSS and the Department of Education will no longer remain. Perhaps I am over-optimistic, but I live in hope in this particular case that the forthcoming Bill will make their position clear at last. I have banged on on this particular subject before, but I have a special reason for doing so; I happen to be a dyslexic myself.

8.5 p.m.

Lord Lovell-Davis

My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be brief, but I hope that it will be useful, because I wish to raise an important question, to which I hope that the Minister can provide an answer when he sums up this very interesting debate, for which we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Noble Lords may recall that in 1977 I introduced in your Lordships' House a debate on the Report of the Committee on Child Health Services, chaired by Professor Donald Court. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two recommendations from the Court Report, both of which were discussed in that debate. The first is the setting up of a children's committee; the second is the publication of a triennial report.

Both these recommendations were made as a consequence of the Court Committee's very careful examination of the best possible ways of representing the interests of children. That is what we are discussing today. If we believe, as I do, that children have special needs which they cannot articulate for themselves, how are we to ensure that those needs are identified and represented?

The Court Committee identified the following fundamental needs: first, to keep under critical review the needs of children and the adequacy of the services provided by both voluntary and statutory bodies to meet them; secondly, to co-ordinate the work of existing bodies to prevent unnecessary duplication and omissions; thirdly, to respond to and to influence public opinion in the interests of children and to press for the fulfilment of their needs to be accorded due priority; fourthly, to disseminate advice on good practice, the recommendations of official committees and the results of research, both in this country and abroad; and, fifthly, to ensure implementation by the responsible authorities of all such recommendations and advice.

If a Minister for Children could fulfil all these needs, there might be a case for pushing for such a Minister, but even then I fear that the post would most likely be made a junior one in a large Government department, carrying little prestige, and the Minister would be impotent to achieve the scale of improved co-ordination that is required. The idea of a Minister for Children was not favoured by the Court Report, which recommended the setting up of a children's committee to represent the views of children.

Three years ago the Government set up the Children's Committee to advise the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales on the co-ordination and development of health and personal social services as they relate to children and families with children. Anyone who has read the recently published second annual report of the Children's Committee will realise that it is beginning to get into its stride and to establish links with national and local organisations, and it is producing valuable work. The future of the committee is due for review; indeed, only two more meetings are scheduled, the last being in June.

It seems to me that this committee, if it were reconstituted to have direct links with Ministers other than simply those at the DHSS—in particular with the Department of Education and Science—could provide an overall view of provision for children and their families, become a forum for the discussion of inadequate and inappropriate provision, and focus attention on the children who make up a quarter of our population. I was particularly heartened to note the setting up of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, and I think that the Children's Committee could work well in conjunction with the new group.

I now come to the question of the triennial report. This was a recommendation of the Court Committee which the Government did not accept. Any committee or, for that matter any Minister, needs to have some sort of machinery which directly relates to monitoring services at national level. At present, several Acts concerning children—for example, the Criminal Justice Act 1961, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and the Children Act 1975—have incorporated a duty for the Secretary of State for Social Services, at given times, to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Act. Such reports are at present not synchronised and relate only to their own limited area of children's welfare.

All these duties could be brought together to lay upon the Secretary of State for Social Services in England, or the Secretary of State for Wales, in Wales, a statutory duty to publish a single report on all aspects of their responsibilities for children, together with the relevant aspects of DES interests and Home Office interests. This report could be laid before Parliament every three years, and it would review progress and impose upon the departments concerned a more concerted view of their combined responsibilities.

This triennial report, the new all-party Parliamentary Group for Children, and a reconstituted Children's Committee could, together, prove much more effective than a Minister for Children. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will be able to give a considered reply on both these proposals, the triennial report and a reconstituted Children's Committee. If he cannot do so, then I shall be grateful if he will ensure that the suggestions contained in my question are brought to the notice of his right honourable friends.

8.12 p.m.

Lord Wells-Pestell

My Lords, the first thing I must do is to explain to your Lordships that I do not speak for the Opposition. I do not think that we can claim to have a particular view so far as this particular matter is concerned. Therefore, I speak as an individual and do not commit my noble friends behind me. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, if he has done one thing at all—and I do not say that disparagingly for one moment—it is to show in a comparitively short space of time how complex this particular problem is.

His Question refers to, the appointment of a Minister whose sole duty would be to look after and to co-ordinate the needs of children". What we have had is a series of contributions dealing with the problem child, the maladjusted child, or the disabled child, but that is not all that the noble Lord had in mind. He was talking about children as a whole. If there is one other thing he has done tonight, it is to make us think. While I sat listening to him I was saying to myself, "What is the problem? Or what are the problems? Do we really know what is needed?" Are we not really like a vast army locked in battle, so busily engaged in the battle that we do not have time to disengage ourselves and see what we are achieving, if anything at all, or what is happening on our left flank or on our right flank?

I have listened with some interest to this idea of having a Minister for children. At this point I would say to the noble Lord that we have no Minister for wildlife or the countryside. It is a function of a number of Ministers within the Department of the Environment. There is no specific Minister. If wildlife and the countryside came before the House again at some later time we may well find ourselves listening to an entirely different Minister on the subject. It is not a question of passing the buck by Government departments. With the exception perhaps of the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury—and I suppose they come into it as they provide the money—every government department in some way or another is doing something for the family, and the family consists of mother and father and children.

It is difficult to have a Minister who is going to co-ordinate this. He cannot co-ordinate anything unless he knows what the problems are. I do not think that any one individual could find out what are the problems of children because you have to see them in the setting of the family. You have to find out what the family problems are. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, quite rightly deplored the absence of interest in children. It is deplorable, but we are faced as a society with: What is the problem? Each of us knows something about children who are mentally ill, physically disabled, maladjusted, or needing this or that kind of help. But the noble Lord, Lord De Freyne, pointed out to us that there are a large number of ordinary children who need to be taken into consideration.

I do not think that an Ombudsman would be of any help at all. We should need thousands of them to deal with the kind of problems thrown up by different sections of children within our society. I do not think that one or two people even with a large staff could do it. That is really out. What we have to do as a society is try to find out what the problems are; what do children really need? It is not just physical things; it is not just money. It is a whole combination of these things.

I remember that in June 1976 the immediate past Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Coggan, initiated in your Lordships' House a debate on the family. At the end of his speech he made a strong plea for the appointment of a Minister for the family. As the departmental Minister concerned, I then being a junior Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security had to reply. While I was sincerely sympathetic, I had to point out that it was not in my view in general a practical idea. I pointed out, as I have said this evening, that every government department has something to do with the family, either directly or indirectly.

The Minister for the Disabled has been mentioned. There was a Minister for the Disabled but there is no longer a Minister for the Disabled, and I am not criticising that at all. But you can define disability. You can even get to the point of knowing how many people come within the definition of disability. We had then, and I believe we have now, a Minister for Sport. That is easily definable. But how do you define the needs of children? How do you begin to talk about the problems of children? The then Government spent several months considering the possibility of having a Minister for the family, and reluctantly came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to arrange. I was in correspondence with the then Archbishop of Canterbury for a long period of time; it was something like a year. I think that he recognised the problems, and I think that we have to look for something else.

What I want to do is draw your Lordships' attention to a piece of research done fairly recently by a close friend of mine. We worked together for 15 years in the National Marriage Guidance Council, he then being the general secretary. He was, until he retired about two years ago, secretary of the Magistrates' Association. I am referring to Mr. A. J. Brayshaw. He undertook some research into the problems of children and the family, and his report became known as Public Policy and Family Life. I wish to refer to a number of the points he made because it would be a mistake if we went away feeling that there were only certain groups—delinquents and others—with whom we need concern ourselves. Mr. Brayshaw pointed out that the education system was not dealing well enough in certain respects with children in that, for example, secondary education should expressly cover the responsibilities of sex and marriage". He asked what we were doing by way of producing suitable films to be shown to children in schools and whether it would be advisable to select suitable teachers to give such education. Many noble Lords will agree with Mr. Brayshaw that it is not within the competence of everyone to do this sort of work for children. The younger generation must be brought up to understand what life is all about and what it is likely to involve them in. To give teaching at that level, teachers must be specially selected and prove themselves to be temperamentally suited to do that sort of work in schools. Indeed, teachers themselves say, "We are not all cut out to do it".

Mr. Brayshaw also thought we should consider the responsibilities of doctors and that the relationship between doctors and girls under 16 should be legally defined in regard to contraception and abortion. These are all matters which are of importance to children and to which we must face up. Indeed, many problems are being thrown up of which some of us are aware while others are not. For example, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1947 increased the grounds for divorce and the Divorce Reform Act 1971 provided for divorce by consent; so there is now in this country divorce by consent. Whereas in 1938 there were 7,000 divorces, in 1977 there were 170,000. I do not have later figures, but I am sure the figures were even higher in 1978 and 1979.

Such developments produce a considerable number of social problems. After all, 170,000 divorces in one year mean about 340,000 children being involved, for good or bad, in those divorces. Society could do a number of things for those children which it does not do because to come within, say, the responsibility of the social worker, there must be some kind of deprivation or anti-social behaviour. That is not to say that the others—those who do not come within that category—do not need some kind of help. Today, about 30 per cent. of marriages involve the remarriage of one or both of the partners who have been divorced. Thus, we are moving towards a society in which, in about another decade, we may have almost as many marrying a second time as are marrying a first time, not because of the death of one of the partners but because there has been a divorce.

Developments of that kind are throwing up a great many problems. That being so, the noble Lord who made the point was right to say that we have never had in your Lordships' House a full-length debate on this subject. I am not sure that such a debate would serve a useful purpose—because we should talk about all the problems with which we are familiar and could not come up with the answers—and therefore the easy answer is not to have a Minister or ombudsman. We need something much more effective, and I think my close friend Mr. Brayshaw has the answer. Like him, I do not think a children's department attached to the DHSS or any other Government department would be able to come to grips with the problem until we know what the problem is.

Mr Brayshaw made 32 recommendations and the 32nd could be put into operation without any cost, although it would be time-consuming for a group of people. What we need is something equivalent to the Law Commission. I do not think any noble Lord would question the important contribution the Law Commission has made. True, it consists of very learned judges, but we could obtain the services of learned people in other walks of life. Mr. Brayshaw suggested: The government should establish a permanent, independent Family Commission of high standing, with expert support, to watch the interest of family life. It should have the power and duty (wherever possible) to examine government and other proposals which it considers likely to affect marriage or family life, and to make and publish representations about them, as well as power to initiate proposals and research". Until we obtain a group of people who are competent in this sphere to investigate what the family and children need, we shall not have a policy which will deal with the issue.

Such a group could investigate the various avenues and fields in which there should be Government help and intervention, and for that matter intervention by voluntary organisations. I hope the Government will look into that proposal. It could be done and it would be to the lasting credit of the Government who did it. As I say, it would be virtually costless to do. I am sure the people could be found. It would be a continuing activity, the group issuing guidance, advice and reports on what needs to be done in this area. I must repeat, probably for the third time, that we do not know the extent of the problem. We do not know which road to go down, and there are so many roads that need exploring.

8.29 p.m.

Lord Cullen of Ashbourne

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has raised an issue of great importance, and we have had an extremely interesting debate, with very thoughtful speeches containing much for my right honourable friends to study. No speech was more important, or more interesting, than that of the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, whom I always think of as my noble friend. We have been friends for many years, and I believe that this is perhaps the last time that he is speaking from the Front Bench in one of these debates. That is a great sadness to me and I am sure to many Members of this House.

It has been pointed out by everyone the importance of children as our heritage, hope and future. We all see this in exactly the same way. We are talking about a non-party matter, and the more that ideas can be pooled, as we have tried to do this evening, the better the chances that we make some progress.

The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is whether a Minister appointed to look after and to co-ordinate the needs of children will help us to achieve this aim. I am sure that it would be unfair to imply that those who, like the noble Lord, desire the creation of such a post, see it as a sort of magic wand with which all the many needs of children could be met overnight. Rather, I assume that they believe that a Minister for Children could provide both a focus and an impetus for action. I am bound to say that the Government are not persuaded that that is necessary and, indeed, they see considerable practical objections to it. Many of your Lordships have this evening come to the same conclusion.

There is also a more fundamental difficulty. As noble Lords know, government in this country is organised along functional lines. Each department is set up to deal with one area of activity as it affects the whole community, from the very young to the very old. It would, of course, be possible in theory to reorganise the responsibilities of departments, so that they were responsible for particular groups; for example, children, or the elderly. Successive Governments, however, have taken the view that the present pattern of responsibilities should be retained. In this way policies can be co-ordinated for the community as a whole and each department can contain the expertise necessary to deal with a whole range of related subjects. The current arrangements recognise, for instance, that the medical care of children is closely tied to the medical care of their parents, and, similarly, that further education must be linked to secondary and primary education, and that in turn to pre-school education.

Let us now examine the practical objections. First of all, a choice would have to be made. Are we talking about a Minister with his own department, or a Minister in an existing department being given special responsibility for children? At a time when we are striving to reduce the numbers of civil servants it would be very difficult to defend the setting up of a whole new department. And bureaucracies, once established, inevitably manage to expand themselves!

We are therefore thrown back on the second alternative: designating a Minister to have special responsibility for children, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. But here, too, there are problems. At the simplest level there is the question of which department the Minister should be in. Should it be the DHSS (as has been recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull) the Department of Education and Science, or where? And what about children in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The present pattern of organisation does not prevent the creation of ministerial posts with responsibilities for a particular group. Indeed, there is the example of my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled. But this approach obviously could not be adopted for every single identifiable group within the community as a whole. It is desirable only where the particular group is well-defined and has its own individual and distinct needs and problems. The difficulty about centralising responsibilities for children in this way is that their needs very often arise out of the needs of the family, or of society as a whole, and solutions must be found within this wider framework. To try to isolate the problems of children, to attempt to make one Minister responsible for all policies concerning them, would therefore mean making a totally artificial division between children, families and the community.

Perhaps I should now give some examples of what the Government have done for children since returning to office. Parents have been given greater statutory rights in their choice of schools and have the right to representation on school governing bodies. The fostering of children in care (referred to by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve) rather than placing them in institutions, has been encouraged, and will be further encouraged, and the numbers are increasing. Supplementary benefit rates for children under five and for those aged 11 to 12 were substantially increased last November. The basic heating addition is now paid automatically to supplementary benefit households with children under five. The maternity grant will be made non-contributory in 1982, to benefit 60,000 additional mothers. Last November child benefit was raised by 75p to £4.75 per week, and will be raised to £5.25 next November.

We have also very considerably helped single parents not only in making them eligible for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit after one year, instead of two, but in disregarding more than half their earnings between £4 and £20 for supplementary benefit purposes. And the one-parent benefit has been substantially increased from £2 per week when we came into office to £3.30 from next November.

The Government are not the sole, nor perhaps the most important, body concerned with children. Major responsibilities fall to health and local authorities, and there are also large numbers of voluntary agencies active both nationally and locally. A Minister for children, if he is to be effective—and there is no point in having him otherwise—must have some control, or at the very least some influence, over all these bodies and activities. This has been pointed out by several noble Lords this evening. So what we find ourselves contemplating is not just a change within Government, but a change outside, too—and a big one at that! I wonder whether even those who advocate a Minister for Children would wish to go so far.

So for all those reasons the Government do not accept that there is a case for a Minister for children. In our view the way forward does not lie in making organisational changes, but in ensuring that there is effective co-ordination not merely between the different Government departments, but also between the various statutory and non-statutory bodies, at both national and local levels. I appreciate that, as most noble Lords have said, that is the most important point. A number of suggestions have been made, and they will all be studied very carefully. There are many differences involved in what noble Lords have suggested, but there is certainly much food for thought, and it is co-ordination between departments and co-operation with voluntary bodies that we must try to get right.

Within the Government themselves there is already close co-ordination, and our concern is that it should be even closer. For example, there are regular meetings between my noble friend the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Personal Social Services to discuss issues relating to children. There are also meetings between the Permanent Under-Secretaries and senior officials of the two departments. These are supplemented by, for example, a special interdepartmental group on children under five, containing members of seven interested Government departments which, in addition to its own meetings, has regular meetings with representatives of the local authority associations, the NHS and the voluntary bodies. Another interdepartmental group exists to co-ordinate policies on the prevention of juvenile delinquency and the treatment of young offenders. On top of these examples of formal liaison arrangements, there is, of course, a vast amount of contact at all levels between Government departments on specific issues.

But co-ordination at national level is not just the preserve of central Government; nor should it be. Of the many voluntary organisations actively concerned with children, there are several which perform a valuable co-ordinating role. I think, for example, of the National Council of Voluntary Child Care organisations, VOLCUF, the National Children's Bureau, the Family Forum, the Maternity Alliance and the Child Accident Prevention Committee. I do not think I need continue with the list in order to make my point.

My Lords, if co-ordination is an important part of good administration at the national level, it is very much more than that at the local level. The basic services for children—health, education and social services—are all provided by local agencies, and their efficient functioning depends crucially on close cooperation between the different authorities involved. But effective co-ordination between these authorities and also with the voluntary bodies can be literally vital when one comes to the difficult and often tragic field of child abuse.

I was asked one or two questions, and there are one or two points to which I should like to refer. If I miss some out, I will write to the noble Lord concerned, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was very right, I thought, in stressing the need for coordination between the Government departments concerned with the problem of juvenile delinquency. But I am happy to assure him that an interdepartmental group for this purpose already exists, and meets monthly under the chairmanship of the DHSS. Its purpose is to co-ordinate policies on the prevention of juvenile delinquency and the treatment of young offenders. Its membership includes officials from the DHSS, the Home Office, the DES and the Welsh Office. There is also a regular meeting between officials of the DHSS, the DES and the local authority associations to review the delivery of services at the local level.

My noble friend Lady Faithfull made a number of suggestions in her speech which I am sure my right honourable friend will wish to consider very seriously. I should like to reassure her on a couple of points. First, in the handbook Care in Action there is a section, running to nearly two pages, on services to children. She will find it in the chapter on priority groups in services, which I am sure she would agree is where it should be. Secondly, there has for the past six years been a children's division in the DHSS. Perhaps it is not organised in precisely the way my noble friend wishes, but I am sure that it is well served by professional officers experienced in social work as well as in child health generally.

Several noble Lords have urged the need for further progress in implementing the Children Act 1975. I can assure your Lordships that this Government are no less firmly committed than their predecessor to implementing the further provisions of this Act as soon as financial resources are available. But the burden would in the main have to be carried by local authorities, and the previous Government gave them an assurance, by which the present Government stand, that they would not have expensive new provisions wished on them without the additional resources required. I am happy to tell your Lordships that we hope soon to make a further modest step forward in agreement with the local authority associations, and have now decided to implement, if possible by the end of next year, all the remaining provisions of the 1975 Act which have only minor financial implications. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Personal Social Services announced in another place, we intend to introduce these provisions in two steps, completing the first stage by the end of this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, asked the Government for a statement on the future of the Children's Committee, which was set up in July 1978 to advise my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services and for Wales on the coordination and development of health and social services as they relate to children and families with children. The committee was set up initially for a period of three years, and my right honourable friends are currently reviewing its future and will make a statement in due course. The noble Lord's suggestion of a triennial report on children certainly has its attractions, but I have to say that in the Government's view, as in that of its predecessor, the publication of yet another regular Government report would not be justified bearing in mind the cost and the staff time involved.

My Lords, in conclusion I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Vaux for raising this subject. As I have explained, it is the Government's view that the interests of children can best be safeguarded, not by the creation of a Minister for children but by seeking to achieve an ever-greater degree of collaboration and co-operation among those who work with and for children. I hope that my noble friend will realise from what I have said that the Government are as eager as he is to strengthen the role of the family.

Lord Wells-Pestell

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to give the House an assurance that he will ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to look at this idea of a family commission? I think really it would be of extreme value to society. As I say, I think it could be done without any cost, but I should like to feel that the Secretary of State would give it serious consideration. May I ask the noble Lord to do that?

Lord Cullen of Ashbourne

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not having made particular mention of that question. I thought that many excellent suggestions were made. I do not know which is the one that is most likely to appeal to my right honourable friend, but I am personally very much attracted by the noble Lord's suggestion, and I shall certainly have it put forward.