Lords Sitting of 6 July 1981

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

Oil: UK Depletion Policy
The Earl of Lauderdale: 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 on what assumptions current depletion policy on the United Kingdom continental shelf is based.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the main assumptions are that there could be a significant surplus of United Kingdom oil production over United Kingdom consumption in the 1980s; that we shall become net oil importers again in the early 1990s; and that the real price of crude oil will continue to rise over the longer term. But there are many uncertainties in all this. That is why the depletion policy which the Secretary of State for Energy announced last July is a flexible one, with decisions being taken on a case-by-case basis as they arise.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that instructive and comprehensive reply, may I ask him whether he accepts that the policy is based, as he said, on the belief that oil prices may rise considerably in real terms over the coming years, and does that not seem to contradict current experience, which is that there is a glut, that there is a depression and that it may be a long while before oil prices really rise significantly again? Would he perhaps take that point back to the department?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I will certainly take that point back to the department, but I should say that we are in a totally market situation in this particular case. However, the Government's oil demand estimate, as I am sure my noble friend will know, is that future oil demand will, of course, depend on many factors, including the rate of economic growth, developments in oil prices and the prices of competing fuels. Of course, the uncertainties associated with these factors are considerable. For this reason, it would be unwise to adopt any single view about future oil demand over a certain time period relevant to depletion policy considerations.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister realise that the proposed break-up of BNOC would make conservation difficult and costlier?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are many things which will make depletion policy and conservation difficult, but I do not think that is one of them.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend take one other point on board for the department; namely, that if there has to be a cutback in production in the coming years it might well come from that part which is reserved for the British Government's royalty of 12½ per cent. and might also come from the production of the state oil company, BNOC? Perhaps he would ask the department to consider that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, my right honourable friend and the department will, of course, consider that point.

Blisworth Tunnel: Repairs
2.40 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: 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 provide the British Waterways Board with extra funds for the extensive repairs required to the long Blisworth tunnel on the Grand Union Canal, bearing in mind that, apart from the sometimes difficult Oxford Canal, it is the only route to the northern canal system from just south of Birmingham.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the British Waterways Board decides its own priorities within the resources available to it. We are aware of the importance that the board attaches to repairing and reopening Blisworth Tunnel. We are already considering a request by the board for extra grant towards maintenance in future years.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Does he realise, first, that the repairs to Blisworth Tunnel are estimated to cost £1¼ million, which is far beyond what anybody originally budgeted for? Secondly, does he realise that the only alternative route north is the Oxford Canal; that maintenance of that canal is poor, to say the least; that it suffers from water shortages in a dry summer, making it virtually unusable, and that this factor makes the repair of Blisworth Tunnel vital? Can the noble Earl at least give some hope of helping in this very expensive repair?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the British Waterways Board has a large number of items requiring urgent attention within the limited public funds available to it. My understanding is that the repair work on this tunnel could spread over two years at a possible cost of £2 million. The board intends to start as soon as its budgets allow, but is unlikely to commence this year. I was aware of the Oxford Canal and I know that it remains an alternative, but not a very happy one.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that this is very hard on hire firms on either side of the tunnel?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords. I do, indeed,

455
agree. I think it is hard on all the cruising public who wish to use this tunnel.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this has very much more to do with the nation's economy than it has to do with the cruising public, whoever they be? The Minister said that the Waterways Board is free to decide its priorities within the funds allocated to it. Is it not true that that is no answer at all to the Question? If heavy freight is not carried on these waterways, then it will aggravate the situation that we now have on the M1, the M4 and I would not know how many other roads, which are breaking up because heavy freight, which could go on the canals, cannot go on the canals because the Government will not decide upon a priority. May I therefore ask the Minister to go back to the Question, which is whether the Government, using their judgment about priorities, will make more funds available for the Waterways Board so that the Waterways Board can more sensibly use its judgment about its priorities?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, like the noble Lord who asked the question, I will go back to my original Answer, which says that the Government are already considering a request by the board for extra grants towards maintenance in future years. Therefore, we are considering the matter. So far as the noble Lord's diversion into the commercial aspect is concerned, I must stress that this is a cruising, not a commercial canal.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, will the Government take into consideration the fact that this kind of work gives a great deal of employment? Does not the cost therefore amount to much less when the employment given is taken into account?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. I am sure that the department will bear it in mind.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although I appreciate the readiness of the Government to give some assistance, is the Minister aware that the annual report of the British Waterways Board states that the arrears of maintenance work now amount to £120 million and that this amount is growing each year? Is this not, therefore, false economy? And has not the board said that because of the 10 per cent. cut in its grant it could not carry out essential work during the last 12 months, which included the work on the Blisworth Tunnel? May I therefore ask the Minister whether or not the question is one of urgent work on some of the tunnels which are 200 years old?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this comes back to the question from the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches; it is a question of where the priorities for money lie. Looking at the figures which I have in front of me, over the past eight years there has been very little change, so both parties have a guilt complex about long-term maintenance.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, speaking on behalf
456
of the Social Democratic Party, may I say that we have no responsibility for either party's policy.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: No, my Lords, and the noble Lord is not likely to have any such responsibility.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord may say that, but having just read the policy of the Social Democratic Party, I did not know that there was anything about waterways in it.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that the British Waterways Board are getting about one-quarter of what was considered necessary, according to a report made some years ago, to bring the canals back to a state in which they could be properly maintained? Therefore, as has already been pointed out, the situation is extremely serious and unsatisfactory.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Lord is referring to the Frankel Report of 1974 which said that a lot of money was necessary for what one might call long-term maintenance, and it still is.

County Structure Plans: Approvals
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in approving draft county structure plans submitted by local authorities in the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in England, out of 69 structure plans submitted, 59 have been approved. In Scotland, out of nine plans submitted, seven have been approved. In Wales, out of 10 plans submitted, six have been approved.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Can he say how many draft plans are still to be submitted? Can he give us a reason why these plans take so long to be submitted? And what is the material effect if a structure plan becomes out of date?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's three supplementaries, the numbers of plans still to be submitted are, in England three, in Scotland seven, and in Wales none. The structure plans take some time to be submitted because the introduction of the new system was delayed by local government reorganisation and often, I regret, by over-concern for detail. My noble friend asked what happens if a structure plan becomes out of date. The structure plans give a general indication of where developments should be located, and on what scale, and will usually remain operative for some time. However, alterations will be needed from time to time and it is clear

457
that structure plan policies are no longer adequate. A number of alterations have already been submitted.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the noble Minister tell us whether a summary of all these plans is available anywhere? I asked for one today in the Printed Paper Office and they do not have a copy. Is a copy which we can have available in the Ministry?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not know the answer to Lord Leatherhead's question. I will certainly find out and let him know.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, on a point of order, it is not"Leatherhead". It is"Leatherland".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my apologies for the geographical slip.

Nuclear Attack: Casualties
2.49 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 confirm Lord Belstead's broadcast estimate that about 15 million people would survive the sort of nuclear attack he expects on this country if it took place at a weekend and what would be their estimate if the attack took place (a) on an ordinary working day and (b) on a week night.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in the event of a nuclear attack on this country there would be bound to be very heavy casualties, at whatever time the attack occurred, but these could be greatly reduced by sensible protective measures.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the courtesy of his reply, may I ask him to take note that once again he has simply failed to answer the Question? May I sit down and give him the opportunity to answer?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, something tells me that the noble Lord would like a little amplification. The attitude of the noble Lord is that in some way the Government are looking upon those who would die in the event of a nuclear attack purely as statistics. That is not the case. The Government never make light of the effects of an all-out nuclear attack on this country. In that event, millions of innocent people would die. But that is very far from saying that people cannot be saved by taking precautions and that nothing can be done for the many millions who would survive.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, will the Minister make it clear to the noble Lord (a) that this Question could not be asked in Moscow and, (b), that the chances of any people dying over a weekend, midweek
458
or at midnight are a jolly sight less if we keep up our deterrent against the Muscovites trying it out?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. The objective of civil defence, of course, is to endeavour to reduce anxiety and to increase our state of preparedness, and I must leave it to the judgment of the House as to whether the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is liable to achieve either of those objectives.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whatever the casualties might be from a direct nuclear hit, is it not the fact that civil defence in this and other countries is designed to protect people against fall-out, in respect of which protection is possible, and also that civil defence precautions should be made in case there should ever be a conventional attack, which is just as likely as a nuclear attack?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. It is along those lines that the Government have endeavoured to give advice to the general public, and I think it was high time that such advice was given.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be a very sad day for this House or for any other part of the United Kingdom if we took for a yardstick what we could only ask in Moscow? Is the noble Lord also not aware that according to recent public opinion polls there seems to be a considerable majority of ordinary people who desire that these hideous weapons should be banished and outlawed? Would it not therefore be a good thing if the Government of our country were to take a lead in this matter and, for a start, make very certain that no other power should have their hideous weapons based on this island?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, nothing would please this country or the Government more than if there could be general agreement on disarmament—but not unilateral disarmament.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government have now changed their policy from asking us all to stay at home, to a policy of deep shelters? If so, has his attention been drawn to the background paper of the inquiry of the British Medical Association, which says that shelters would be useless owing to the blast heat in most of the United Kingdom and that—and I quote:
"they would become ovens for their occupants. The great surface heat would cook and asphyxiate them"?
Is that the prospect?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, the premise on which the noble Lord's question is based is not entirely correct. The Government have carried out a survey on the possibilities of designs for domestic shelters and have made those available to the public in order to try to combat the effects of fall-out, to which my noble friend Lord Renton drew attention. But may I make it clear that there is no question at this stage of recommending householders to acquire nuclear shelters of

459
that kind or of any other kind, although, as I have said, we have made the information available; and that, I believe, is one of the responsibilities of the Government.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I suggest we should now pass on to the next business.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am sorry. The noble Lord did ask a supplementary question and there have been a number of other supplementaries. We have spent 17 minutes on this Question and I think it is time we moved on.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: No! Order!

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available today at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Education Bill will adjourn at approximately 7 o'clock for a short period. During the adjournment the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Yugoslavia Agreements) Order 1981 will be taken. At a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on violence in Southall and Toxteth, Liverpool.
Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Bill
2.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "special educational needs"and"special educational provision"]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, after ("age") insert ("and ability").
The noble Earl said: This amendment concerns the definition of children with a learning disability. I
460
think it is important at the beginning of the Bill to get the definition right. These, after all, are the children we are talking about throughout the whole Bill, which was quite widely welcomed by your Lordships. I do not have any particular quarrel with the definition, but I do regret that the word"ability"is left out. It seems to be a very serious omission. The problem is that it is quite easy and obviously more simple to compare a child with his or her own age group. One can say,"He is stupider than the 10-year olds", or cleverer, and it is obvious to see.
The definition actually leaves out one surprisingly large block of children with learning difficulties, and that is the child who has very real learning difficulties but possibly a high IQ: in other words, a child with great ability. I am quite sure that these children should not be measured in an arbitrary manner against children of their own age but should be measured by their ability against the ability of other children. One can so easily imagine a situation where a child with a really high IQ appears to be just as good as his own age group but in point of fact beneath the surface may be a very frustrated person, under-performing and not living up to his or her potential in any way whatsoever.
In educational matters I think that is one of the worst areas to accept mediocrity when it is unnecessary to do so. So I make a plea to my noble friend that she acknowledge the necessity for the insertion of these two very simple words so that clever children with a learning difficulty—and it is a learning difficulty which we are defining here—may be considered and may be treated in order that they may come up to their real potential. I think there is little more to be said except that this covers a large number of children. Your Lordships will probably know that I have been interested in dyslexia for a number of years, but it is not confined to that in any way whatsoever. So I ask my noble friend to consider putting these two words into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I should like to support this amendment. The definition as it stands would seem to me to be in danger of making 49 per cent. of the children suffer from special educational needs. Obviously a majority of the children of their age who have an IQ of 50 or below could be argued to have learning difficulty because they would not be learning as well as children of their age. It seems to me the important thing here is omitted if the word"ability"is not included. The educational needs problem surely arises at every level of ability, whether low, average or high. lf, compared to children of his age and ability, a child has difficulty, he is falling behind; this applies whether he has limited ability or very high ability. Merely to take age seems to me to be omitting the much more important factor.
Baroness Young: I very much appreciate the point that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is seeking to make by this particular amendment. I should like to assure him that the Government have given a great deal of thought to the definition clause in this Bill. As he will see, the definition of"learning difficulty"has three parts to it. I have also very much sympathy with children who suffer difficulties in reading and writing although they have ability that is just as good

461
as that of their contemporaries. Such difficulties lead to great distress, or can lead to great distress, and they can certainly cause great anxiety to the child's parents.
What I hope I can show the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, is that exactly the point the noble Earl is making about such children is in fact covered in this definition because in fact this definition of a child who has,
"significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age",
has been deliberately widely drawn. It would cover children who were termed dyslexic and it would cover other children who have learning difficulties. The more one restricts this, the more one goes back to the concept of special categories of children with particular learning difficulties. Therefore, it has been drawn in this way to catch children in precisely the way that I believe Mrs. Warnock and her colleagues wished to do. I hope the noble Earl will accept that his amendment is unnecessary, that the children he is concerned about will come under the definition as drafted in the subsection.
The Earl of Radnor: I am not absolutely happy, but I am prepared to accept that they will come under the definition. I think with my wording they would have come under the definition a little bit more strongly. I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment now that it has been aired, and in view of the fact that there is an amendment coming on later which might monitor this particular aspect as it progresses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I regret to say that there are a couple of errors regarding Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 3 refers to page 1 and therefore comes next. Amendment No. 4 should read"page 2, line 7", not"line 34", and therefore will come after Amendment No. 3. So the order in which I shall call the next three amendments will be No. 3, No. 4 and then No. 2.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
("; or
(d) he suffers from a disability with which his family are unable to deal.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment also concerns the definition of children with learning difficulties but with a slightly different slant. Handicapped children cannot be educated without a great deal of thought also being given to their families, and, if they are to be integrated into the normal schools and live at home, great thought has to be given not only to the parents but to the other children of the family. Therefore, I move this amendment (which is not very well worded) in which I have added at page 1, line 21, under the three definitions, a fourth definition, which is that"he suffers from a disability with which his family are unable to deal".
Having dealt with the families of handicapped children, I have learned over the years that a handicapped child can enrich a family. But there are other
462
circumstances where some families cannot really deal with a child with a handicap or an impairment. I have learned that one has to listen very carefully to what the parents say and what they are feeling, and rightly interpret what they are meaning. If I may, I will give your Lordships one example: I was dealing with a family where a child had had a brain haemorrhage, having been a lovely child before the brain haemorrhage. The mother cared for that child very well and gave it a great deal of time and care. But she came to me and said,"I cannot cope any longer. The doctor says I am doing well, the professor says I am doing well, the social worker says I am doing well, but I cannot manage. I shall do something to the baby when I do not really mean to."This is the kind of situation which one faces. Unless we take into account the family in the definition of children with learning difficulties, I think we shall make a very great mistake. There is also the question of the other children. There are some families who will devote all their time to the child with the handicap or impairment and not regard the other children as needing help. Therefore, I have put down this amendment hoping that the family can be considered.
My last point is this: in the present situation of financial stringency it well could be said that this child could be educated in a normal school and at home, but, with no reference made to the needs of the family, it could be possible to overlook those needs. It is for these reasons that I move this amendment. It could be said that under Clause 2(3) account has to be taken of the views of the parents, but I imagine that that means with regard to the child, not with regard to the parents' own feelings. I realise also that this amendment could be said to be tied to Amendment No. 7, which is to be moved by the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Winstanley. Therefore, in the hope that the Minister will feel that at any rate the family should be given some notice, I beg leave to move the amendment.
Baroness David: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Baroness a question on this. Supposing this amendment were accepted, what in fact does she imagine would happen to the child? Would the child be sent to a residential special school or a foster home? I do not quite see what would follow from acceptance of the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: Obviously, if the child cannot stay at home there are several courses that would be open. In the case I cited, the child might go to a home from Mondays to Fridays and be at home from Fridays to Mondays when the father was at home and could support the mother. In other cases it would mean going to a residential school. In yet other cases it might mean a foster home, or it might mean day care, with the child coming home in the evenings. These are the avenues which are open, but if it is not in the Bill there will not be the terms of reference for payments to be made.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to support my noble friend in this amendment. I have knowledge of a family where the eldest child is autistic and the result of him being kept at home is that the other children in the family are"making noises"and

463
are not speaking at all, except very badly, to his parents. Therefore, the provision of this particular amendment would, I feel, enable the eldest child who is autistic not to be sent away—he has adoring parents—but to receive education other than in the home and from the home.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: While having some sympathy with the point which the noble Baroness has made, I also should like to ask her a question. She says in her amendment:
"suffers from a disability with which his family are unable to deal".
There are different sets of circumstances that make it difficult for a family to deal with a particular disability. I am thinking primarily of perhaps a child suffering a disability who lives in a multi-storey block of flats where the family would not be able to cope but who, if they were given the opportunity of living in a house with a garden, could quite easily cope with the disability. I am wondering how the amendment would work in practice. I am asking for information.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with the noble Baroness; this is a problem and it is a difficulty. However, if good work is to be done in this area each case must be treated to meet its needs. If the needs are that the child should be in a small house with a garden, then it is to be hoped that the social workers, working with the housing department and the education department will be able to meet those needs. However, strangely enough, there are some parents who are very robust and who can deal with a quite severely handicapped child in the home without damaging the other children. There are other parents who are less robust —and that is nothing against them at all; it is just the way they are made—who cannot deal with a handicapped child, who perhaps has not a serious disability or impairment. Therefore, I think that every case has to be treated according to its needs.
Lord Banks: I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness after listening to what she has had to say. I see the problem to which she is referring, but I am not clear that it is an educational problem. It seems to me that it is certainly a problem that affects the welfare of the child, but it is not really to do with that child's ability to learn, that child's ability to take advantage of whatever educational facilities might be there. It is a question of whether the child can continue to live in that particular household. I am not quite clear whether this is a matter affecting the education of the child apart from his general welfare and that of the whole family.
Baroness Young: I have, of course, listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lady Faithfull has had to say in speaking to her amendment, because I know that her views are based on her very considerable experience in the social services. However, I hope that I can show once again that in fact her amendment is unnecessary. The definition in Clause 1 is based on the perceived needs of the child, and therefore the definition in Clause 1 is concerned with special educational
464
needs defined in terms of a learning difficulty. If a child has a disability or a learning difficulty which arises from any cause which could include home circumstances, and precisely the kind of circumstances that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has identified, then he or she will come under either subsections (2)(a) or (2)(b) of the definition in Clause 1, and therefore would be recognised as having a special educational need. Once they have a special educational need, then the other provisions of the Bill will come into play.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will recognise and be assured that her amendment is unnecessary for the same reason that I gave to my noble friend Lord Radnor as regards the first amendment. I should like to say that the more one defines precisely the circumstances, the more one tends to narrow the Bill rather than to widen the definition. In these particular circumstances the rather wider definition covers the point that my noble friend would like to make. I hope that with that explanation she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that I have met many children who away from their families can learn, but who with their families cannot learn. It was for that reason that I moved the amendment. However, I shall read what the Minister has had to say very carefully tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) In the event that a child is assessed as having a learning difficulty partly or solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home, his parents shall have the right to be consulted.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to say at once that this is purely a probing amendment. There was a good deal of anxiety on Second Reading about exactly what Clause 1(4) meant and so I have put this amendment down in order that we can have a discussion about this matter and find out what the Government are doing about the problem of linguistic difficulties. I think that the Minister said on Second Reading that this problem is being dealt with in a different way. I think that we would probably like to hear what it is.
There is absolutely no doubt that linguistic difficulties do exist and create a learning difficulty. We have just had the Rampton Report which of course makes that quite clear. There was, in fact, interesting discussion during the Report stage in another place, and I should like to refer to the letter from the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality which was quoted on 10th June at col. 450, because it does make the problem quite clear. David Lane says in a letter:
"It is our contention that many teachers hold stereotyped perceptions which, unintentionally, label black children as problems per se and that under the terms of this Bill"—
the one we are now considering—
"they are disproportionately more likely to be so defined. We are not arguing that the Warnock Report or the Bill in any way

465
intend to apply unfortunate stereotypes to black children. What we are suggesting is that given teachers' assumptions and the all-embracing categories of SEN (special educational needs) in the Bill this may well happen. If it does, the well-known anxieties of black parents under the former ESN system will continue to be justified with the SEN concepts of the new Bill.".
He goes on to say:
"The Commission is very concerned about the general situation regarding mother tongue teaching and the continued failure of mainstream education to recognise the extent of linguistic diversity and the reality of bilingualism in many British schools. In fact we would welcome separate legislation on this issue".
It is in the spirit of endeavouring to find out what the Government are doing that I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Young: Let me say straight away that I very much welcome the fact that the noble Baroness has said that this is a probing amendment. She is right in saying that this is an important matter and one which was discussed at considerable length in another place. I should like to explain as fully as I can the kind of problems that one faces in definitions under the Bill because the Government are in fact faced with a choice of either including or excluding problems deriving from language of the home within the scope of the Bill. One simply must face the fact that whichever way the decision is taken there will inevitably be some criticism. If, for example, we had included some definition that involved language, we might well be accused of calling all children who do not speak the language of instruction,"handicapped children", and we should then further be accused of adopting an approach which might be racialist to their educational problems. On the other hand, if as in this case, we have excluded them, we can be equally well accused of ignoring their educational needs.
I think that these are very difficult arguments to speak against, and so it might be helpful to remind the Committee of the kind of difficulties that we met over pupils of West Indian origin who had, in fact, been placed in special schools for the educationally subnormal. The noble Baroness herself has referred to problems of that kind. I do not think that anyone would now deny that it was inappropriate for some of those children to have been placed in those schools and, furthermore, for them to have been left in those schools without a proper review of their educational needs. This is a state of affairs which the department has been trying to put right for the best part of a decade and one which no one from either side of the Committee wishes in any way to encourage.
Therefore, when we came to draft the Bill we decided that it would be wrong to introduce legislation which allowed this kind of misunderstanding and inappropriate placement of children to continue. But in drawing up a definition of"special educational needs"to cover the Warnock concept of up to one child in six, we continually found that any form of words which was broad enough to achieve that also ran the risk of including pupils whose only problem was that their mother tongue was not the same as the language of instruction in their school. The only way to make our intentions clear was to make a specific exclusion, as subsection (4) does. That is why it is so drawn in the Bill. We have deliberately drafted subsection (4) so as to avoid any confusion between children whose only
466
problem is one of language and those with special educational needs in the Warnock sense.
However, this does not mean that the needs of the former group will be neglected. Local education authorities will continue to have a duty to provide for them under the general provisions of Section 8(1) of the Education Act 1944. They will not, however, fall to be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill, unless, of course, they have special educational needs arising from a cause other than language.
I hope, as the noble Baroness has indicated, that she will withdraw this amendment, because, in fact, if it were to be accepted, it would go against the Government's intentions in this area. Children with language problems would be brought within the scope of the Bill and we think that their communities would immediately fear that their children were all going to be educated in special schools. I should like to assure the Committee that the only form of discrimination in this subsection, as drafted, is positive, and it is aimed at avoiding the misunderstandings of the past. I hope that all noble Lords will understand what is the purpose of this clause.
Perhaps I could comment on the last points which the noble Baroness made. We have just seen the publication of the interim report of the Rampton Committee, which is still being considered. On the question of mother tongue teaching, various research projects are going on into this matter, and at this stage it is too early to draw firm conclusions on the outcome. But, of course, these are all matters which the Government need to consider very carefully. The whole question of children having one language at home and another at school is a complicated educational matter, but it is not one that falls within the remit of this Bill.
Baroness Gaitskell: I should like to support the Government on this matter. I am sorry slightly to disagree with my noble friend who has just spoken to this amendment. As an example perhaps I could take myself. I came to this country at the age of 4. My father knew a certain amount of English, but my mother knew none. What happens to such a child between the ages of 3 and 4? What happened to me was that I fell in love, absolutely spontaneously and at once, with the English language. It was no good my parents being consulted on this because they did not understand the language, and this must very often apply to immigrants in this country. I happened to go to a very ordinary but good school. It was rather a poor school to begin with but it taught well and there was no need to consult the parents. I do not see how parents such as mine could know the English language better than their children. Children learn a language extremely quickly and I honestly do not think that this amendment is necessary.
Baroness David: I do not want to fall out with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I hoped that I had made it clear that this was intended purely as a probing amendment and that I shall be withdrawing it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said and I shall read it again with interest. However, as I said, I am withdrawing this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) A child with a disability is not to be taken as having a learning difficulty solely because the buildings and other premises of ordinary schools are unsuitable for the needs of the child or because the child has not been provided with the aids, equipment and other help he needs because of his disability to make use of the educational facilities provided in schools, within the area of the local authority concerned, for children of his age.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is, again, one concerned with the definition of learning difficulties, and I think that the number of amendments on this clause underlines the difficulty that there has been in drafting the clause. At present subsection (2)(b) states that a child has a learning difficulty if his disability:
"either prevents or hinders him from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided in schools, within the area of the local authority concerned, for children of his age".
There has been much discussion about what constitutes"educational facilities", both in another place and in this House at Second Reading. It would seem that at present a purely physically disabled child, if there were no school in the area capable of providing him with the necessary access, aids, equipment or other help, is deemed to have a learning difficulty. So if there is no suitable school in the area, obviously he would have to go to a special school.
There was concern both here and in another place that access problems were, indeed, being confused with learning difficulties. In another place there was an attempt to remove subsection (2)(b) from the Bill altogether, but on Report the Under-Secretary of State said that his information was that the inclusion of subsection (2)(b) in the Bill was the only way to include the right categories of disabled people. If this is the only way to include the blind, the deaf and the physically handicapped, so be it; I am not attempting to delete subsection (2)(b) and I am not attempting to exclude these children from the Bill.
But if this amendment succeeds it would mean that the children covered by subsection (2)(b) may have a learning difficulty but should not be taken as having one simply because no ordinary school in the area can meet their needs. Amendment No. 5—the new clause, to which I shall speak later—seeks to ensure that at least one ordinary school in the area would meet these needs. When explaining subsection (4) dealing with the children with language problems (which we have just discussed) the Minister at Second Reading explained that the exclusion of those children, whose sole problems derived from language difficulties, was not because they do not have special educational needs which local education authorities are already under a duty to meet, but because we wish to avoid the position arising whereby children from ethnic minorities feel themselves, however misguided, as being classified as handicapped because they have yet to gain a full understanding of the language of instruction. She has just said much the same thing again. I hope noble Lords feel, as I do, that the purely physically handicapped child should not feel, misguidedly or otherwise, that he is further handicapped
468
by being taken as having a learning difficulty, and the amendment seeks to achieve this.
As the Minister wrote in a letter to me on 28th June:
"Subsection (2)(b), which attracted comment during Second Reading, catches those children who have no difficulties with learning as such. They are perfectly capable of learning, every bit as well as their peers. However, the distinguishing factor with this group of children is that some positive intervention is required that they may receive instruction".
The positive intervention required will be dealt with in Amendment No. 5. Meanwhile, I submit that we should make it perfectly clear in the Bill that in the words of the Minister herself:
"These children have no difficulties with learning as such".
I beg to move.
Lord Maybray-King: I wish to support the amendment which has been so excellently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. This is an excellent clause. It is the friends of all that is intended by the clause who seek to make absolutely clear further improvements to certain things in it. This amendment seeks to make clear that learning disability does not mean disability because one local authority is unable to provide the kind of treatment that that learning disability warrants. It is as simple as that. I hope that all of us who are interested in the wellbeing of handicapped children will support this amendment and will then support the new clause which strengthens it—Amendment No. 5. I am happy to support it.
Baroness Bacon: I think it is rather difficult to discuss these two amendments separately; I was rather hoping that they would be taken together. As I understand the amendment which we are now discussing, it concerns the suitability of the buildings where the child is to go, which is also the case with Amendment No. 5. When I occupied the position now occupied by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I had to deal—as I am sure she has to deal now—with disagreements which arose between parents and local authorities regarding the education of their children. I always found that, so far as physically handicapped children were concerned, the difficulty lay not so much with the child as with the building to which the child was supposed to go.
I remember that, just as I was about to leave the Department of Education, I was dealing with a particularly difficult case. It concerned a girl of very high intelligence who had a serious heart defect. Incidentally, this was in an area where the 11-plus examination and grammar schools still existed; I am pleased to say that that situation no longer exists within that particular authority. This schoolgirl passed the examination to go to grammar school but unfortunately in the particular grammar school to which she was to go, and to which her parents insisted she should go, all the classrooms were on the first floor. The ground floor of the building contained only the kitchens, the dining hall, bicycle sheds, and so on. The headmaster said that it was impossible for his staff to help the girl upstairs, in case there was an accident. I could see his point of view, but I could also see the parents' point of view—although, as is well known, I disagree with separate grammar schools and secondary modern schools. However, I could appreciate the

469
parents' point of view; that their daughter was an exceptionally intelligent girl who had passed the examination to get into this grammar school, and so that was where they wanted her to go.
There was an absolute impasse. The local authority offered the girl a place at a boarding school for physically handicapped children of very high intelligence, but it was 300 miles away from her home. Again, the parents turned this down bedause their daughter had this very serious heart condition and they wanted to see her frequently—yet the school she was offered was 300 miles away from her home.
I am not quite sure whether the speech I am making really ought to be made on this amendment or on Amendment No. 5, because they do overlap to some extent, but I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will accept the amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
Lord Milverton: I should like to support the amendment. In speaking to Amendment No. 5 I shall simply say that I hope my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept it. I was not able to be present in your Lordships' House at the Second Reading but, in a previous debate which dealt with the disabled, I did make the point that, so far as possible, buildings should be suitable for the disabled, in addition to any aids or equipment. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will support this amendment.
Lord Digby: With your Lordships' permission, I feel I must say a word about Amendment No. 5 because, so far as local authorities are concerned, Amendment No. 5 is the sting in the tail. What these amendments are really doing is trying to speed up the implementation of the Warnock Report. We all want that to happen as quickly as possible, but I must point out that it is inappropriate in the present financial circumstances to impose extra duties more quickly. Local authorities are trying their best to implement Warnock's proposals. These amendments would have great cost consequences and, while we are absolutely ready to understand the urgency, it must be left to the normal building programmes within our financial resources.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: l had not meant to speak to this amendment but what has just been said forces me to do so. If Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are not accepted, there will be a perfect excuse for a local education authority not to make schools suitable for physically handicapped children but to rely on special schools for handicapped children to come to its aid. If the present amendment is not accepted, it will enable local authorities to say that such children are suffering from a disability which makes it necessary so to provide for them. In other words, the simple absence of physical access would cause these children to be categorised as having special educational needs when in fact they do not have special educational needs. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will look at this point very carefully.
Baroness Young: I listened with very great care to what was said about this amendment by the noble
470
Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and indeed to the support which it has had from many speakers in your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. Again, I believe there is a misunderstanding here about the meaning of this definition. It is not a definition simply about physical access to buildings—I should like to make this quite clear. What we have sought to do is to draw definitions as widely as possible in order to express in legal form the continuum of special educational need which Mrs. Warnock mentioned in her report from those who are very severely handicapped to those who might have a slight learning difficulty at one time in their lives but not at others. There is a continuum of experience which anyone who is familiar with this world can see.
It is very difficult to convert this concept into law, which is what one must do in a Bill such as this one. That is why I said at the beginning that a great deal of thought had been given to this matter, and, if I may, I should like to try to explain what it is we are attempting to do. In subsection (2)(a) there are those children whose common feature is that they have greater learning difficulties than the majority of pupils in their age group. This part of the definition will catch, for example, children who are mentally handicapped and hose who are suffering from reading difficulties, as a general statement.
Then we go on to make another general statement, which is subsection (2)(b). This subsection catches those children who have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), quoted from my letter to her, no learning difficulties as such. They are quite capable of learning as well as their peers. These are children who have physical defects but who are perfectly well able to learn. The distinguishing factor with this group of children is that some positive intervention is required so that they may receive instruction. These children might suffer from a hearing or visual impairment, or they might have problems of mobility, but it is not correct to view subsection (2)(b) as being concerned with access to buildings. Children with hearing difficulties could perfectly well manage access but at the same time, clearly, might have other difficulties.
When referring to access, subsection (2)(b), concerns itself much more with access to the curriculum, and it embraces children who fall within the 20 per cent. of children whom the Warnock Committee believed might have special educational needs at some time during their school life. Subsection (2)(b) will catch the learning difficulties both of the child who needs to sit near the blackboard or the teacher and of the child who is both blind and deaf. Subsection (2)(c), of course, covers a third group of children under the age of five.
The definitions are drawn in this way in order to cover all these groups of children. If I may say so, the effect of the noble Baroness's amendment would be that a child who might otherwise be taken to have a learning difficulty, and hence a special educational need deriving from a physical disability, would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill if suitable buildings and aids could not be provided to enable such a child to attend an ordinary school. Learning difficulties defined in the Bill, as I have explained earlier, are about both

471
mental difficulties and difficulties in gaining access to the curriculum.
I appreciate that this is a concept which it is not always easy to understand. It is not always easy to translate into the cold words of law, but we have somehow got to try to do it and to do it in a way which will give a flexibility for local education authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, will be far more familiar than I with the terms of the 1944 Education Act, and he will know that they are very widely drawn and how grateful everybody has been subsequently that they were drawn in this way, because it has enabled local education authorities to develop the type of education which they thought to be right. Precisely the kind of points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, brought up, which are the sort of problems which will and do arise, can be met better by this wider definition than by a narrower one.
I shall be glad to write to any noble Lord on this point who feels that I have not explained it fully, so that I may go into it in more detail, but I genuinely believe that if the noble Baronesses' amendment were to be included in the Bill, far from widening the definition and helping the children it would be likely to narrow it and make the terms of the Bill less applicable to groups of children. I cannot believe that that is the intention, and I would ask the noble Baroness to consider carefully whether she wishes to press her amendment. I hope she will feel able to withdraw it. If I could help by writing to her before the next stage of the Bill or by considering the matter further, I should be glad to do so.
Lord Somers: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, may I ask the Minister one thing? She mentioned children who are deaf. What happens in the case of a child who is partly deaf—not wholly deaf, but deaf enough to need the help of earphones, perhaps, and some form of electrical amplification? Mentally that child may be perfectly normal and perhaps even more brilliant than others, but what happens in that case?
Baroness Young: If a child has a hearing impairment he may have learning difficulties, because if you are born slightly deaf of course it is difficult to learn as quickly as others how to speak and therefore it is more difficult to learn to read and write, although the child may be just as intelligent as his contemporaries. Under the Bill, before the child reaches the age of two the parents could, if they so wished, ask for an assessment to be made of him and his special educational needs. At any rate by the time he got to school an assessment would be made. If it was decided that a statement should be made about him, which is what we are talking about in regard to some of these children, then that statement might say that the child should go to a special school, or it might say that he could be educated in an ordinary school with special help, or perhaps in a deaf unit attached to an ordinary school. There might be a whole variety of arrangements that could be made for the child. The Bill does not say what they would be. It simply says that it is important at this stage to identify what is causing the learning difficulty, without necessarily giving a kind of blueprint
472
for the way that that child, his special educational need having been identified, should be educated.
Baroness David: As my name is to this amendment too, I should like to say a word. I was not entirely convinced by what the Minister said in so far as it covered just physical access. However, as far as I am concerned, I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment, if Lady Darcy also is, but I should like to reserve the right to come back on this matter at Report, having read and studied what the Minister has said. It of course depends on the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should first like to thank the Minister for her reply, but I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David. I, too, am not totally convinced by what she said. I should very much welcome it if we could have further correspondence on this subject and see whether we can clear up the incongruity of the wording of this clause in relation to the purely physically handicapped. I should like to thank noble Lords for their great support for this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. It is a rather complicated amendment and it deals slightly in semantics, which is why I did not speak to it at the same time as Amendment No. 5 which is an extremely clear cut amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Southall and Toxteth, Liverpool: Disturbances
3.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will report to the House on the violence which occurred on Friday, 3rd July in Southall, London, and on 4th-5th July in Toxteth, Liverpool. The violence in these two places arose in different circumstances.
"The disturbances in Southall began when a group of white skinhead youths began smashing shop windows in the Broadway. Word of this soon passed within the local community, and groups of Asian youths gathered near a public house where skinheads were listening to a pop group. The pub was attacked, and the police, in their attempts to keep the two sides apart, were assaulted with petrol bombs, bricks and other missiles.
"As the police were increasingly reinforced they brought the disorders under control. But 105 officers, 2 firemen and 3 ambulancemen were injured. Twenty-five members of the public were treated in hospital. There was damage to property, and 23

473
arrests were made. There were some further disturbances in Southall on Saturday, but the scale of the violence of the previous evening did not recur.
"In Toxteth in Liverpool on Friday evening, a group of police officers attempting to arrest a youth whom they believed to have stolen a motor cycle, were set upon. The following evening, when police were called to an alleged incident in the area they were again attacked, on this occasion ferociously, with bricks and other missiles. Reinforcements were called as buildings were set alight and the police were assaulted with petrol bombs. The area in which the disturbances occurred was cordoned by police, and brought under control: 75 police officers were injured, one of them seriously; 15 arrests were made.
"The worst violence of the week-end occurred last night in Toxteth, and the House will be aware of its main features. The police were faced with concerted violence by white and black youths, hurling missiles, including petrol bombs, and setting fire to, and looting, buildings. The cordons the police had formed to prevent violence spreading to other parts of the city were attacked by having stolen vehicles driven at them. The Fire Service were unable to bring their equipment into the area to control the buildings that were ablaze. The 92 occupants of an old people's home had to be evacuated. In order to prevent further violence and damage, the chief constable authorised the use of CS gas. This was effective, and the rioters were rapidly dispersed. The Merseyside Police were reinforced very quickly by officers from the Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Lancashire forces. None the less, the injuries sustained and the destruction of property were serious: 128 police officers were injured, and 47 are still detained in hospital; 53 arrests have been made.
"This week-end, particularly in Liverpool, the police were attacked with an extraordinary ferocity. Violence at such a level must be firmly met if people and property are to be protected. I wish to make it clear that chief officers of police will have my full support in taking positive action when necessary. In the circumstances of Sunday night the chief constable of Merseyside had no alternative to using CS gas. Distasteful though this was to him and to me, I believe he was totally right in that decision. In the light of the new ferocity of the violence I have decided that better protective headgear and fire-resistant clothing must be available to the police. And steps will now be taken, with police authorities, to this end. The working group, which I set up after the Brixton disorders, will carry these decisions forward.
"Throughout the week-end, I have been in close touch with the commissioner and the chief constable of Merseyside. They have both reported to me personally today. As far as the events in Southall are concerned, the commissioner will present a detailed report to me, and Southall will form a part of the study into racist attacks which is currently under way. The chief constable of Merseyside will, of course, be making the report he presents to his police authority available to me.
"Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to pay tribute
474
to the officers of all the forces involved and to those from the emergency services who sought to carry out their duty in the face of such determined opposition. Violence of this nature cannot be tolerated in a free society. The Government are determined to see that our people are protected. For that to succeed, those to whom we entrust this task must have the full support of all our leaders, and all our people".
That, my Lords, is the Statement.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating that Statement, a grave one, the gravity of which is compounded whether or not the various incidents are in any way connected—and we must be careful to distinguish between them—by the fact that it is the second time in less than three months that a Statement of this kind has been necessary, and again there has been a serious breakdown in law and order. I ask the Minister to accept that we join in condemning in the strongest possible terms the criminal acts, violence, arson, looting and wanton destruction; and let it be clearly understood, whatever were the immediate or underlying causes of tension, frustration, anxiety or indeed provocation, that there can be no justification or excuse whatever for these appalling acts. Nothing at all can condone them.
We all deeply regret and share the Minister's regret that CS gas—riot gas, so-called—had to be used and it must be said that that brings a new dimension to these outbreaks of lawlessness. But in the circumstances, the decision was absolutely correct. Equally, it must be said once again, and perhaps more loudly than we have said it before, that we must not tolerate no-go areas in this country. It is the plain duty of the police to combat crime and maintain the peace, and it is essential that they be enabled to do so, and I welcome what the Minister said about the new protective measures to be introduced.
We join the Minister in commending the police and the other essential services for their courage in dealing with these incidents. We also express our sympathy for the victims of this mindless violence, and their families and those who suffered damage and other forms of disruption; and it was indeed deplorable that people, including elderly people, were actually forced to leave their homes.
Would the Minister accept that clearly there is an urgent need, arising from the various inquiries which have been carried out recently and before into the problems of the inner cities, to act on the outcome of those inquiries? There is a need to be clear, of course, about the immediate causes and the underlying causes as well, and there is a need to deal urgently with the growing and increasingly disturbing problems of the inner urban areas and the extent to which racial tensions have played a part. I would particularly ask the noble Lord whether the Government will look again to see what can be done to help especially on problems of unemployment, particularly among the young, housing and other social shortcomings.
I think it also needs to be said that, in inquiring into these matters, we need to assess clearly and fearlessly whether there were any, and if so what, shortcomings

475
regarding the actions of the police during the incidents and in terms of their more general community relations; what warnings were given by community leaders and what action was taken about them.
I have on a previous occasion asked the Minister this question, but I ask it again because it is of particular assistance to the people concerned, and the more publicity that is given to it the better: what provision is there for compensation under the Riot (Damage) Act 1886? And so far as the Minister's reference to the inquiry into racist attacks is concerned, may I ask him to say how that is going and how soon we may expect it? Whatever longer term action must be taken to deal with these problems, the overriding and immediate concern must be to ensure that law and order is maintained and that the police have the means to do that. People in this country must be protected.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the final words of the Statement indicate that the police must have the full support of all our leaders and all our people. I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House would agree that no amount of unemployment, social deprivation or inner city squalor could even remotely begin to justify, the sort of criminal violence we have seen in the last few days.
There are three matters on which I should be obliged if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would comment. First, my information from both my noble and honourable friends who were in Liverpool in recent days is that it was clear that extremists, both from the Left and Right and particularly from the Left, had come into the area from outside and were quite deliberately stirring up trouble. Has the noble Lord any information about that, and may we have an assurance that, if that is so, the people responsible will be ruthlessly rooted out and dealt with for the various offences of incitement that there is no doubt they have committed?
Secondly, may I ask the Minister to say when the working group on police equipment will report? In particular, can he say how quickly now the measures indicated in the Statement in relation to police equipment can be put into effect? Thirdly, while I have no desire for one moment to seek to suggest that the heavy burdens on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, should be increased in any way, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government might consider asking the noble and learned Lord if it would be equally convenient to him to issue an interim report at the end of part one of his inquiry into the Brixton disorders, dealing with the policing problems of inner city areas where there are ethnic minorities, and leaving aside for the moment part two of the inquiry where he will go on to consider at some length the longer term problems?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their reply to the Statement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston, for his clear condemnation of the violence. I suggest that we must wait and study carefully the detailed accounts which will come from both the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the chief constable of Merseyside so far as looking
476
for the underlying causes are concerned. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the very difficult decision which was taken by the chief constable for the use of CS gas, and indeed for the general support he gave for the work of the police and the sympathy he expressed for the injured.
The noble Lord asked me whether the Government will accept the urgent need to act on the outcome of the inquiry at present taking place regarding inner cities. I think it would be helpful if, as a matter of fact, I were to reveal that during the present financial year the Liverpool Inner City partnership will receive the sum of £17·6 million, and in addition a further £17·2 million is to be available this year to the Merseyside Development Corporation. The money is to be spent on economic and environmental projects. The economic projects will include, among other things, the work of the South Liverpool Personnel Employment Agency, which is specifically designed to help those with difficulties in finding employment.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, also asked me specifically about the payment of compensation. Claims for compensation will be dealt with under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which provides that, subject to certain conditions, the police authority shall pay out of the police fund compensation to any person whose house, shop or other building has been injured or destroyed, or the contents of which have been injured or destroyed or stolen by persons who riotously and tumultuously assemble together. Claims should be made within a period of 14 days. The consideration of claims in respect of the disturbances in Southall is a matter for the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District, and in the case of Toxteth it is a matter for Merseyside County Council.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his clear statement to the effect that nothing can excuse this appalling violence. The noble Lord asked me whether there was any understanding or intelligence that extremists of any kind were involved in these incidents. I think that the investigations by the commissioner and the chief constable will address themselves to this very important question which the noble Lord has raised. I think that all I ought to say in this respect at the moment is that anyone who seeks to ferment disorder in these communities, or in any community, does a very grave disservice. I can certainly respond to what the noble Lord said to me. I feel sure that where persons are apprehended, charged and found guilty, the courts will take a severe view.
The noble Lord also asked me about the bringing into effect of my right honourable friend's decisions on police equipment. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will seek to make available as quickly as possible helmets which will resemble the crash helmets worn by motor-cyclists, and which have protective visors and padding for the neck. With regard to the use of fire-resistant materials for uniforms, and rapid means of extinguishing fires, and equipment for immediate first aid, the introduction of the use of these will go forward with all possible speed. Those decisions are being taken ahead of the final studies that are going on in the working party on police equipment.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked about the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scar-man. The second part of the noble and learned

477
Lord's inquiry, which is to consider the problem of policing areas where the community is multiracial, will look at areas outside Brixton. The noble and learned Lord will no doubt wish to take account of the situation in Liverpool.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, especially in the light of the heavy list which he gave of police casualties, many of us are deeply concerned about the effect of these events on the police and their morale? Can he say what steps, other than those that he has already outlined, the Government are taking to show in the most conspicuous way possible the support for the police which exists in all responsible sections of our society? Can my noble friend go a little further than he did a moment ago and say when, in particular, the fire-resistant clothing is to be issued? Is he aware that it is really horrifying to see on television pictures of petrol bombs exploding near policemen wearing ordinary police uniform? Is he also aware of the need for war-time type measures of urgency in order to get this particular clothing into issue? Finally, can he say whether, in the light of the very proper use of CS gas in Toxteth the other night, the Home Office has now altered its view against the use of water cannon?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with regard to the Government's support for the work of the police, the most direct answer that I can give to my noble friend is to say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was with, and was talking to, the chief constable of Merseyside at a quite early hour this morning, and a little later he was with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I believe that those two senior officers were as glad to be talking to my right honourable friend about these really appalling occurrences over the week-end as he was to be talking to them. I believe they feel that my right honourable friend supports the work that they are doing. Of course my right honourable friend for his part is deeply appreciative of the difficult work that the police do.
My noble friend asked me about bringing into use fire-resistant materials for uniforms. Such materials will be brought into use with all possible speed. My noble friend also asked me about the use of water cannon. On this question I would say simply that it is most important that the Government, the police and the local authorities should try to go forward hand in hand, and these matters, too, are also being discussed at present.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I wish to raise two brief points—and they will be brief. One of them concerns the question of what weapons the police should use. May I ask the Minister to accept from a very large number of us that there is no regret, no hesitancy, over the use of CS gas, or water cannon, if these methods prove to be the best way of breaking up these mobs? I do not weep any tears for those who would be on the receiving end, and I ask the Minister whether he believes that that is in fact the view of most of the people of Brixton? I know Brixton, I know Southall. I do not know the"scousers"in Toxteth but I suspect that they, too, believe much the same.
478
My second point concerns the question of proper riot gear. The Minister says that this matter is going forward with all speed. By an accident I happen—I declare an interest—to represent a commercial organisation concerned with both the production of headgear which policemen can wear for any reasonable period of time and the invention of flame-resistant overalls (long coat and trousers) which they can put on when the time comes. Will the Minister please consider representations from me to the effect that we, private enterprise, are not receiving the encouragement that we need to proceed with this matter? Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago a senior official of the Minister's department said that it was outrageous that a company which wished to manufacture these items should offer its advice to the Governent on the kind of material that should be used. Will the Minister be willing perhaps to discuss this matter with me and with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, and any other Members of your Lordships' House who are particularly concerned with it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, for the two points that he has put to me. On the first point, about what I think I would call needs must, I would not wish to add anything to what the noble Lord has said. With regard to the second point that he raised, of course on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary I would be ready to discuss with the noble Lord and any other noble Lords who might so wish, this point or any other point connected with policing. My right honourable friend appointed this working group on protective clothing and equipment for the police following the serious disorders at Brixton last April, and certainly that group is going to take account of the urgent new dimension which has been presented over the weekend. But may I repeat to the noble Lord that even before the work of that working group is finished the decisions which my right honourable friend has taken so far as helmets and flame-resistant clothing are concerned will go ahead with all possible speed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I, too, should like to have the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having repeated the Statement, which the Government had the courtesy to circulate to us in advance. Of course, we associate ourselves fully with all the condemnations of this appalling violence which have been expressed so far in the House, and also with the need for reviewing the whole question of protective clothing for police in these terrible situations. But there is also another, non-police point which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, touched on when he spoke of underlying causes, and when we are thinking about police measures we should also, I think, not allow ourselves to forget the underlying causes.
It was reported on the"Today"programme this morning that the figure of unemployment in Toxteth is 40 per cent., as against a city average of 16·3 per cent., which is high enough in itself; and, as the noble Lord is I am sure aware, the percentage of youth unemployment is normally higher than the unemployment figure for the population as a whole. Would the noble Lord therefore not agree that these events

479
give particular urgency to the speedy implementation of a coherent further education and training programme for all 16-to 19-year-olds as envisaged in the Manpower Service Commission's recent publication, A New Training Initiative?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to voice his concern, but at the same time I do not think either the noble Lord or the House would wish to leap to conclusions. The Government—concerned, as the noble Lord is, at the high level of ethnic minority unemployment—believe that the best single thing that they can do for the minorities is to control inflation and try to create real jobs, and to see that in that way unemployment will fall. Meanwhile, may I remind the noble Lord of what I ventured to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boston: that at the moment massive funds are being injected into Merseyside.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, would my noble friend accept my grateful thanks? Having asked a Question on 1st June about the subject to which my noble friend Lord George-Brown referred, I am most grateful for the speed with which the Government are moving.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Pargiter: My Lords, as one who was intimately concerned with the affairs of Southall for a very long time, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware—I am sure he is—that the Asian population of Southall generally is no less law-abiding than the native population? In fact, in my experience they are every bit as law-abiding. Therefore we have to look to some extent at the causes of the present situation. There is undoubtedly—I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it—a growing feeling among the Asian population in Southall that they have got to defend themselves against fascist and skinhead attacks, and they appear to be grouping for this particular purpose. I know that the police position is extremely difficult, but the Asian population in Southall get the impression that the police are defending these fascist elements—who, after all, are imported into the district; they are not native to the district generally speaking—and I believe that this is one of the basic causes of the trouble.
Will the noble Lord ask the police to look very carefully to see whether they can find means to control these hooligan elements, which are the basic cause of the trouble—for which trouble, in the end, the Asian population are getting a good deal of the blame although they do not initiate it? What they are saying particularly at the present time is that the police do not appear to be able to defend them from attacks from skinheads and people of that kind, and therefore they have got to do it themselves. I hope that great care will be taken to see that this aspect of the matter is looked at in order that these people (who are, as I say, in the main, as law-abiding as any other citizens in Southall) may feel that they have the protection that they need from the police, so doing
480
away with this desire to gather up into groups in order to counter-attack (which is what it really amounts to) against those elements who are imported into the town.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the important point which the noble Lord has raised is, of course, forming a major part of the inquiry that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set up into racialist attacks; and, of course, that inquiry includes racialist attacks which have occurred in London. But I cannot let the noble Lord's question pass without making the point, with which I think the whole House will be familiar, that it may sometimes seem as though the police are not able to prevent attacks when in fact it is the duty of the police, through the oath which they take when they take up their police duties, to discharge those duties without fear or favour. In other words, the police service is often left standing in the middle. This is what makes their job so exceptionally difficult, and I ask the noble Lord, as I know he will, to bear this in mind.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, in joining in the distress at the damage and injury that have been caused, and looking beyond the current discussions and remedies at the root of the trouble, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister; but may I first, with the indulgence of the House, explain that I believe there is in this country very strong anxiety about the insufficiency of the reduction of the inflow of ethnic groups other than British. My Lords, for the last 30 or 40 years, perhaps, in this House I have supported those who have felt very strongly on this matter and who have had concern for what may happen as a result of too large a proportion of other ethnic groups in our country. I was brought up in the Victorian era, when the very presence of a policeman commanded respect and order and at a time when"patriotism"was a noble word and developed the most respect for Britain in the counsels of the world. That is what I wanted to say by way of preamble—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Barnby:—to explain why it seems that these riots which have taken place recently do not contain people who have any respect for Britain, the police or the monarchy and what it stands for.
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Barnby: My Lords, it is for that reason that I now urge the Minister that he requests his right honourable friend to give consideration to the establishment of a generous fund to encourage voluntary repatriation, so lessening the pressure on the services in this country.
Lord Belstead: Of course, my Lords, most of the ethnic minority community in Liverpool come from families which have lived in that city for some generations. They are British citizens by birth, and there can be no question of their repatriation. But the more general suggestion which my noble friend makes for repatriation of members of ethnic minorities is not a part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Having said that, I agree with my noble friend on one

481
of the final points that he made—that is, the necessity for all of us to support the authority of the police; because it is as"authority"that the police exist. The final words of my right honourable friend's Statement were:
"For that to succeed, those to whom we entrust this task must have the full support of all our leaders, and all our people".
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask whether, while echoing the expressions of sympathy for the police in the appalling casualties they sustained in Southall and in Liverpool, the noble Lord does not think that sympathy ought to be expressed also for the Asian community in Southall, who were terrorised, insulted and assaulted by the influx of a very large number of skinhead thugs to appear at this pop concert? Would the noble Lord look into the question of how these events come to be arranged, since it may be that no one has deliberately attempted to foment disorder but that people who ought to have known better arranged a concert by groups such as the"4-skins", who were known to have a skinhead fascist following, in an area where their presence was likely to be provocative?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as the general point that the noble Lord has made is concerned, that is part of the inquiry into racist attacks which is going on at the moment. So far as concerns the specific point that the noble Lord makes about the incident which started the trouble in Southall at the beginning of the weekend, I think we should await the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Soames: My Lords, perhaps it is time that we got back to the business of the House.

Education Bill
4.22 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of local authority
. In respect of a child who would be deemed to have a learning difficulty under section 1(2)(b) above if within the local authority area concerned there were no ordinary schools with buildings and other premises suitable for the needs of the child or if aids, equipment and other help he needed were not made available to him, it shall be the duty of the local authority concerned—

(a) to ensure that the buildings and other premises of at least one ordinary school in their area are made suitable for the needs of the said child; and

(b) to provide the aids, equipment and other help the said child needs to make use of the educational facilities provided in the said school".)

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is self-explanatory. As I talked at length on Amendment No. 4, we have been over the access question many times and several noble Lords have already supported this in a sort of spin-off manner, I will not talk for long. But, as my previous amendment was withdrawn, it is vital that those children who would not have learning difficulties as such and who, as the Minister admitted,
482
only need positive intervention so that they may receive instruction, get this in the form of at least one ordinary school in the local authority area concerned providing access. This may be in the form of level entrance, wheelchair accessibility, loop induction systems, colour contrast, et cetera and whatever equipment they require. If this minimal provision is not made in the Bill, the latter will contain no true commitment to achieving integration, at any rate from the aspect of the blind, deaf and physically handicapped.
Many existing schools are inaccessible and a number which have been built since 1970 are inaccessible. We must ensure that those disabled children who could cope in an ordinary school are given the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I should like to support this amendment. There is a danger in the present situation. I accept totally the Minister's concern to keep definitions broad and to avoid rigidity or narrowness, but the 1944 Education Act placed a duty on local education authorities to provide for the physically handicapped, the deaf and the blind. That duty under the 1944 Act was in almost all cases fulfilled by the creation of special schools. That was the method adopted. The basic purpose of the Warnock Report is to get away from that concept, to broaden the definition of children with educational need, to make a major contribution to integration so that these children, as far as possible, can be educated in an ordinary school.
I accept the point made on an earlier amendment about costs. At the Second Reading I pointed out that we have to face a rather unusual situation. The present building regulations only require accessibility for disabled in new buildings and not in existing buildings. Therefore, unless we make special provision relating to existing buildings, the possibility of integration just disappears. This is the reality. I do not think that this amendment in any way restricts the definitions and purpose of the Bill. It merely says to a local authority that, whereas under the 1944 Act they had a duty to provide for the physically disabled and they could do that by providing for them in special schools, they now have a duty to see that at least one of their ordinary schools is so equipped that physically disabled children can attend there and pursue their education.
It may well be that guidance will be issued by the Department—I hope so—that at least one school should be equipped for the partially-hearing group or one for other forms of disability which are not sufficiently extreme to justify keeping those concerned out of the ordinary school. Obviously it is an unreasonable expectation that an ordinary school can be equipped for all of these groups—the physically handicapped, the partially-hearing, the partially blind. That is not a reasonable proposition. To include this amendment gives a lead to local education authorities, a lead different from the 1944 Act and one which is a necessary provision, in my judgment, if the Warnock Report purpose is to be fulfilled.
Baroness Bacon: I should like to support this amendment. I do not intend to repeat the speech which I made on a previous amendment, but to the noble Lord on the other side of the Committee who raised the question of expense I should like to say

483
that this is sometimes very exaggerated. In the instance which I quoted, the local authority was willing to pay thousands of pounds to send the particular girl to a very expensive school 300 miles away from home when, I am quite sure, a small lift could be arranged in the school at perhaps only a fraction of the cost that would have been entailed to keep that girl in that special boarding school for seven years of her life. In addition, it would have been useful for other people in the future. I agree with this amendment and I hope it will be accepted.
There is only one further comment I should like to make about it. One of the ideas at the back of this Bill is that handicapped children should be educated wherever possible in an ordinary school among other children. If, as I hope she will, the noble Baroness accepts this amendment, I hope that in any regulations which are drawn up or in any instructions which go out to local authorities it is made clear that the catchment area should not be too big; because I foresee that if the catchment area is very big then an ordinary school could very soon become a special school for the handicapped. With that proviso and that understanding, I should like to support the amendment.
Lord Banks: I should like to join in supporting this amendment for the reasons which have been so well expressed by previous speakers. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), described this as a minimum commitment, and it seems to be a minimum commitment. The concern which many of us have on this Bill is that the good intentions of which it is full will lead to very little, or not enough, in practice. This is one of the amendments which seeks to prevent that from happening. I am happy to support it.
Baroness Lane-Fox: It is with very great regret that I feel bound to support the amendment. I say"with very great regret"because I well realise the difficulty of the circumstances. I do so feeling slightly encouraged that my noble friend the Minister and the Government have chosen such good timing for this Bill at a time when we are told the school population is falling dramatically. It surely would do less than justice to their skill if there were not suitable ordinary schools where physically handicapped pupils with learning difficulties could be accommodated. To have just one such school in an area seems essential if we are to believe that this Bill is going to work. While recognising all the complications, I am hoping that my noble friend the Minister may find it possible either to accept the amendment or to seek the best possible good practice from education authorities to achieve this end.
Lord Somers: Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, I have no regrets in supporting this amendment. It is an absolute minimum. It is a very necessary provision and it is not asking a great deal of local authorities which, after all, are perfectly capable of dealing with it. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: While supporting the amendment, I consider that the points raised by my
484
noble friend Lady Bacon are important to remember, bearing in mind that the wording is"at least one ordinary school". Those local authorities that do not want to do very much will quite easily say,"We have a ramp in that school and we have a classroom in that one that will take those that cannot see very well". We shall find that the units will be segregated once again by the disabilities, and that is not what integration really means.
I do not want to concentrate on that part which other noble Lords have mentioned. With regard to the physically handicapped, paragraph (b) is more important because the majority of children that have to be integrated are those classified as ESN(M). They comprise the category of children which are now classified as children in need of special education. They will need the aids and equipment and help in the ordinary schools in the same way as special laboratories are there for science and teaching languages. These children will also need facilities in the ordinary schools. These will be equally necessary for their learning as well as physical access arrangements.
Viscount Ingleby: I should also like to support this amendment. I believe that integration, where possible, is the best answer. I think that I was one of the first fully disabled students to go up to Oxford University after the war. I count myself very fortunate indeed to have been able to do that. I would have suffered if I had had to go to some special institution elsewhere.
Baroness David: I should like to support this amendment very strongly; it seems the very minimum that we can do in this Bill to make it a little better. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Digby, that if he is really going to jib at making one ordinary school in an area fit for some handicapped children, that is a very mean attitude indeed of the local authorities.
I should like to remind the Committee of a few words from the report of the working party of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, Integrating the Disabled. It says:
"We believe that the time has come to evince in action rather than words the commitment to integrating the 'hard core' of more severely handicapped children".
Later it says:
"The aim should be to ensure that there are throughout the country ordinary schools at all levels, properly staffed, serviced and equipped to meet the needs of handicapped children. This could be of enormous benefit not only to many of those children at present in special schools but also to those who are now in ordinary schools without adequate help".
The report continues:
"However, local authorities only have autonomy within limits laid down by national policy and we believe that on the question of integration the Government must give a clear and decisive lead, since the alternative is inevitably a development which is likely to be patchy, unsystematic, unco-ordinated and 'un-integrated'.".
I think we have in various areas authorities which are doing very well. I mentioned Haringey with its deaf children in ordinary schools when I spoke on Second Reading. In my own city of Cambridge we have two schools which have deaf children who have integrated very successfully. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Young: I have listened with very great care to the many speakers in support of this amendment. Of course I looked at it very carefully when considering what the Government's response to it should be. I do not want to go over what I said on Amendment No. 22, which in a sense is linked to it, when I explained why Clause 1 has been drawn in the way that it has. I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment, that although the Government accept the principle—and indeed the Bill makes the principle clear—that children with special educational needs should, wherever possible, be educated in ordinary schools, the actual effect of this particular amendment is to have identified a group of children with special educational needs and to have said the local authority must have a duty to establish a school to meet those particular needs.
The effect of the amendment would therefore be to require a local authority to make available one ordinary school in the LEA area capable of catering for blind, deaf and physically handicapped pupils. It does not have to be capable of catering for other pupils with special educational needs, although they too might require special equipment, and it does not cover the full range. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, quite rightly said, there are a lot of children who are now in the category of an ESN(M) child about whom education authorities could quite legitimately have very great doubts as to whether those children are better educated in an ordinary school or in a special school. I have visited a number of schools in which the head teacher has said,"Some of these pupils will be going on next year to the ordinary school, and we shall receive some pupils from the ordinary school in our school". This is the kind of flexibility that we want.
Furthermore, I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon,made a very real point about one of the difficulties of this amendment because, of course, to consider a large geographical local authority area—and some counties are quite large—if it had one such school it would, in any event for some, be quite difficult to reach because of the actual distances that would have to be travelled. It would once again establish itself as a kind of special school. It is precisely to get away from this that the Bill is drafted and we are looking to a new type of educational system.
So when I say that in a sense I think it is putting the clock back, it is grouping three categories of handicap and saying that local education authorities ought to make a special school suitable for these particular handicaps. We believe that we cannot legislate in this way for a particular range of factors which would have to be taken into account before a child with serious learning difficulties can be admitted to an ordinary school. I certainly accept the point that is made that we shall make progress towards integrating handicapped children by the provision of specialised units attached to ordinary schools. Indeed, I am certain that every noble Lord taking part in this debate—and I think we have all visited many schools; I have visited some in the noble Baroness's Cambridgeshire where there are very good examples of integrating deaf children into schools—knows of examples where there are
486
ordinary schools with a unit attached where children with special educational needs go from the unit into the school and back to the unit again. It is a very good way of getting integration, and one which is much to be encouraged. Many authorities are doing that, but I do not think they are simply limiting it to a certain range of handicaps. This is more often done with deaf units and in some cases it is done with blind children, but there are children with other handicaps as well. I hope that as a result of this Bill we shall see a continuing integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools. The pace of change will be gradual and it will inevitably be in line with available resources. Of course, very much will depend on the willingness of the local authority and the teachers concerned to have this kind of mix of children: but I do not believe if I may say this quite sincerely to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who is so expert in this matter, that her amendment will achieve what she really wishes.
May I conclude my remarks with a true story. About two weeks ago I visited a local authority and a headmaster said to me:"I am taking into my comprehensive school next September a spina bifida child."I thought that was a very good thing to be doing, and he was talking a bit about the sort of difficulties that will arise not because the child is not intelligent enough to do the work, but because of the difficulties which any child with spina bifida clearly has. This is the sort of thing we should like to see, but it would be a pity if, because somebody can do this with willingness and co-operation in one area, one would have identified a school in the area to which anybody with these sorts of handicaps was going. It is far better that they should be going to schools which are regarded as appropriate where the staff want to see them, where there is a great willingness to co-operate and where everybody is working together to make it a success and not, as I say, putting the clock back to define a certain group of categories of handicap and saying:"These children must be in one specific school."
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. As I have said, I am trying to think positively about the points concerned, and certainly the Bill is trying to help with the integration of handicapped children wherever possible into ordinary schools.
Baroness Bacon: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may just take up one point. I did not make the point about an ordinary school becoming perhaps a special school in order to oppose this amendment, but rather to say that wherever possible any ordinary school should be so fitted and built as to take handicapped children if they can benefit from the education there, and to ensure that the area is not so big that the school would become a special school; and indeed it does not say only one school in one area. If we read this amendment properly it says:
"…at least one ordinary school in their area … made suitable".
But this is only to apply if the other schools in the area cannot, because of structural or financial reasons, so change the building and equipment as to make it possible for the children to go to the ordinary school. It does not mean that we want to designate one school to which all physically handicapped children should go.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: Before the noble Baroness considers the question of withdrawal, I should like to ask the Minister whether I have understood correctly what she has been saying because, if I did, she seems to have completely misunderstood the amendment. The noble Baroness seems to suggest that an ordinary school is to be equipped to meet the whole group of handicapped children. This amendment does not suggest that. It says that, where a child is deemed tohave special educational needs, because the ordinary school is not equipped to meet his needs at least one school in the area of the authority should be so equipped. So you might have one school which was made suitable for physically handicapped children, and there might be another which had some special equipment for this or for that purpose. In other words, what the Minister was seeking—units attached to ordinary schools that provided special facilities—would emerge from that. There is no question of one school trying to meet all the needs. The amendment does not suggest that for a moment.
Baroness Young: I must apologise to the noble Baroness if I misunderstood her remarks. I did not intend to do that; I was trying to explain some of the difficulties about this. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, I think we are going back to the confusion that we had on Amendment No. 2, concerning the definition of special educational need in Clause 1(2)(b), when the noble Lord was arguing that you had a special educational need if there was not physical access to the building, and I tried to explain that in fact that is not what this subsection means. This amendment is designed to put right what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, thinks is wrong with that first definition and to alter that one to put in this.
As I tried to explain on the earlier debate which we had on Amendment No. 2, I think she has misunderstood the definition, and I hope very much that we shall have an opportunity, either by correspondence or discussion, to cover the ground again. I am happy to do so this afternoon but, having just given a lengthy explanation as to what that definition is, I feel the Committee may not wish to hear it all over again on another amendment. I think the difficulty arises that because there has been a misunderstanding of the definition we then have a further amendment to put right what the noble Baroness thinks is wrong but what the Government are convinced was the right definition the first time round. It is for that reason that I could not accept this amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to thank the Minister for her reply, but I am not really convinced by it. She is right in saying that in a sense this amendment was trying to put right what was wrong with the other one, but, as I said earlier, it can very well stand on its own.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, summed up the argument much better than I could. I can see what the noble Baroness is getting at when she says that it is only trying to amend the situation for the children under Clause 1(2)(b), and as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, pointed out, a large number of the children we are talking about are the ESN(M) and perhaps at another stage we ought to try to do something
488
about them. But from the point of view of the physically handicapped, such as a spina bifida child, the amendment very clearly refers to access and to age, equipment and other help. It does not specify what may be the particular need of a particular child in that category.
I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, and I realise she was not trying to speak against me in any way. Indeed it is at least one school in the local authority area, and I should like to draw attention to the amendment which is coming soon—Amendment No. 7 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banks—which might go even a little further to put things right.
The noble Baroness said she hoped we would not put the clock back, but I feel we must go a little way towards starting the clock. We really must make a start because in 1976 Section 10 of the Education Act reversed the policy of the 1944 Act, stating that where possible the physically handicapped should be educated in ordinary schools. As Mrs. Williams said at the time in 1976, that was only reflecting what had been Government policy for many years. That section was never put into force and so we have already waited five years for this start. I regret that I must press the amendment.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Alexander of Potterhill, L. [Teller.]

Ingleby, V.

Janner, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bacon, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Barrington, V.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bernstein, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beswick, L.

Loudoun, C.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Blyton, L.

Milverton, L.

Boothby, L.

Mishcon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Brockway, L.

Northfield, L.

Caradon, L.

Oram, L.

Chitnis, L.

Plant, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Collison, L.

Porritt, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Robbins, L.

David, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Scanlon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seebohm, L.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fulton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gosford, E.

Somers, L.

Gregson, L.

Spens, L.

Grey, E.

Stamp, L.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strauss, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

489

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Willis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Killearn, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Atholl, D.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Barnby, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Melville, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clwyd, L.

Newall, L.

Cockfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Colwyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L,

Onslow, E.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Digby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Exeter, M.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Soames, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vickers, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Westbury, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Provision of special education: duties of local education authorities etc.]:
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 19, after ("needs") insert ("and to secure that the teachers of these children have sufficient and appropriate experience and/or qualifications to meet these special needs.").
The noble Baroness said: The reason for this amendment is that in Clause 2 a duty is put upon local education authorities,
"for securing that special educational provision is made for pupils who have special educational needs".
There is nothing to say how that should be done. It may be thought that laying this duty upon them will, of itself, be enough to ensure that they will train enough teachers and make the necessary staff arrangements. But while we recognise that very interesting and important developments are going on, it is important to appreciate that the situation over the whole
490
country is very patchy indeed. Some authorities are much more generous than others in letting people take in-service training and in making special arrangements.
Of course, the Warnock Report sets out a considerable number of very interesting courses which are available. But what worries us is that, with the cuts in local authority expenditure and the drastic cuts that the UGC will have to face—which are bound to reduce the number of graduates coming into these professions, as well as into other professions—it will be all too easy, unless there is some statutory sanction, for local authorities to say, as one noble Lord has already said today,"It is a good idea, but we cannot afford it".
We already have some statutory qualifications for the teachers of blind and handicapped children, and the Warnock Report makes it very clear, on page 236, that there should be similar statutory qualifications for teachers taking up posts involving,
"a defined responsibility for children with special educational needs".
Some noble Lords who have not had time to read the report might be surprised to hear that the chairman boldly suggests that teachers should be required to get an additional recognised qualification within a period of three years. So I do not think that our amendment can be regarded as particularly rash.
I know that this may not be the place where we should discuss courses and syllabuses, but the Warnock Report makes various suggestions for the kind of training which is needed and which is absolutely vital for implementing the report. It seems to me that there are three problems. It may be that we do not have the wording of this amendment quite right, but I hope that I can make the intention clear.
It is obviously going to be very important for teachers on the normal training course to have a very sensitive and intelligent input into their courses so that they may be prepared to receive into their schools the kind of children we have been talking about today. Unless we do something about the teachers, it will not help the children very much, whichever school they go to. I raised this point at Second Reading and it is a slightly difficult one professionally, but the Secretary of State does have some power to require qualifications. I. should be encouraged if I felt that this matter was being considered and that something practical was at least on the drawing board.
The normal teacher training course seems to me to need to create among teachers an expectation of the changes that this Bill will make in their classrooms and help them to be more sensitive and aware of early difficulties. I am not saying that teachers should set themselves up to diagnose what is wrong with children. However, I have known teachers whose sensitivity to the problems of a certain child has led to it being found to be autistic or dyslexic. The teacher plays a vital part in picking up problems early; then the whole service can help that child.
If a child is to be provided with special education—again I take the case of the autistic child—I have known some autistic children to be very much helped by music. Very many music teachers are peripatetic. I was very worried to read in the last report published by HMI that one of their concerns is that as a result of

491
the cuts it will be the part-time teachers and the peripatetic teachers who will be cut first.
After a teacher has had three years of training—with, I hope, this input into the syllabus—it is very important that existing teachers should get their in-service training on as generous a basis as possible. I would wish this to become more usual than any other special course. The teacher who has completed a three-year training course and then spent a few years in school feeling the battering of the classroom and the strains and the problems, and who has seen different kinds of children, would benefit more by going on a course. As a result of their experience, they could take on board more of what they are being taught and could bring their difficulties to those who are doing the teaching and the training.
One course at the University of London gives a diploma in teaching the educationally handicapped. Another place where that diploma course can be taken is Goldsmiths' College. An evening course is provided there. I do not believe that many noble Lords would want to teach a big class all day, a class probably including some disabled children, and then take a train to go to an evening class to do a diploma course which will make them even better teachers. Those who do these evening courses must be very dedicated and loyal. However, life ought to be made easier for them. Release should be provided, either on a day a week basis or on a term in a year basis.
I have no authority or qualification to lay down what should be done, but I have read very carefully the Warnock Report. We have got to make some definite provision so that education authorities know that it is in the statute and that there is to be no excuse for lack of any provision. At present they cannot excuse themselves for not employing teachers with special qualifications for teaching deaf and blind children. What is more—this, I know, is worrying some teachers—those qualifications lead to extra payment on the Burnham scale. We have to ask whether or not we should extend these special payments to teachers who are qualified to teach other kinds of handicapped children or who possess the sort of general qualification for teaching children with special educational needs that Mrs. Warnock recommended.
The whole future of this report depends entirely on what we do about the teachers. I shall end my remarks by quoting from page 251 of the Warnock Report:
"The procedures which we have recommended for recognising and meeting the needs of children who require special educational help will be of no avail unless all teachers have an insight into the special needs which many children have and unless teachers with defined responsibilities for such children have the specialist expertise required. Our proposals for the future depend on this and should be acted on as quickly as possible".
I do not think anybody can put it better than that. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to agree to the amendment, which I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I sympathise entirely with what the noble Baroness has said. It is, of course, essential that where there are cases which require special education there should be teachers who are properly qualified, but I am beginning to wonder whether or not this point is already covered by the Bill as it stands. The Bill refers to the need to secure that special educational
492
provision is made for pupils who have special educational needs. Surely the phrase"special educational provision"includes the provision of teachers. I cannot imagine providing education without providing the proper teacher. I should have thought the Bill already covers that point, but perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten me.
Lord Renton: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has done us a service by moving this amendment. As she so rightly said, the provision of the necessary number of teachers with the necessary specialised qualifications is at the heart of the implementation of this Bill. But I, too, doubt whether the amendment is necessary. Also, I doubt whether it is technically adequate, if I may say so, and I shall explain what I mean in a moment. The amendment places a duty—and rightly so—upon the local education authorities, but I do not think that the local education authorities can provide all the kinds of specialised training that would be required.
Perhaps I may just mention something from my own experience. Some years ago, we found at MENCAP that there were no specific facilities in teacher training colleges for training teachers of the mentally handicapped. So, with the aid of Sir Frank Price, the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, and generous help from others, and with funds that we raised ourselves, we started at Selly Oak, part of Birmingham, the first ever college for training teachers of the mentally handicapped. It was opened by Her Majesty the Queen Mother some years ago. Other arrangements have been made elsewhere since then, but still, I fear, not enough. What we had in mind was that we should take in to this college only teachers who had already been qualified in their initial training in the ordinary way who would then do an extra year getting the special qualification as trained teachers of the mentally handicapped.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, my noble friend Lady Young said at column 978 that there were three kinds of teacher training: initial training, specialised training for specific handicaps and in-service training. When I expressed doubt in that debate, at column 1006, as to whether enough teachers were being trained, or would be available, for teaching the mentally handicapped, I said that it would be helpful if at some time we could have statistics. In replying to the debate, my noble friend said that in due course she would hope to provide some statistics. I have given my noble friend no warning of this, and I hope she will forgive me: I hope I am not taking an unfair advantage. It may be that she is still not ready with the statistics that I am about to ask for, but if she happened to have them, and could provide them now, of course if would help very much in the debate on this amendment.
So far as the mentally handicapped are concerned—and I cannot claim to be speaking for any other kinds of handicap or disablement at this moment; I must confess that I am speaking only about the mentally handicapped—I should like to ask four questions: The first is, how many such teachers will be needed in order fully to implement the Bill? Secondly, how many are now available? Thirdly, how many more

493
are being trained? Fourthly, how many places are there already for specialised training?
I think those are the four crucial questions so far as the mentally handicapped are concerned and I hope that my noble friend may feel that this interesting amendment is a good peg on which to hang some further information which she might give to the Committee. Having said that, as I said in starting, I seriously doubt the need for the amendment.
Baroness David: I want to speak in favour of the amendment, which I think was extremely ably moved by my noble friend Lady Jeger. I do not think there is nearly enough in the Bill about teachers, which was one of the main Warnock priorities, and, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I think he is very optimistic if he thinks that subsection (1) means that there will be enough properly qualified teachers for the various numbers and variety of children who will be in the schools needing this extra help.
With regard to the local authorities, the noble Lord Lord Renton, picked on the deficiencies of the drafting but even if we say that this applies only to local authorities, they are extremely well equipped, if they wish to do so, to take on in-service training, and, when a later amendment is moved by me with regard to special schools and special resource centres, that of course will bring in an opportunity for in-service training, too. I remember one of the early meetings of the special committee in another place when they were taking expert evidence. I cannot remember who it was, but one person giving evidence said that very often it was better if the teachers had some in-service training after their initial qualification. They probably learned a good deal more having first had some ordinary teaching experience.
When we look at this clause, we see that the only mention of teachers in it is in subsection (5)(c), where it says:
"to secure that the teachers in the school are aware of the importance of identifying, and providing for, those registered pupils who have special educational needs".
I do not think, really, that awareness is enough, unless they have the necessary skills that go with it. In relation to that, at Second Reading, the Minister said:
"What I believe is required is a greater student awareness of the kinds of special educational needs likely to be encountered in the classroom. I am pleased to say that there has already been a response among colleges of education and universities to meet this need".
But I do not really think that awareness of needs is really adequate. In fact, the teachers may even feel frustrated, feeling that they are aware of the needs, but they do not know how to cope with them. So I would press strongly for this amendment to be accepted, or at any rate to be accepted in principle. If the wording is defective that can be put right at the next stage.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, because it seems to me that already there is provision for this, as indeed in a later amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I am a member of the council of Dr. Barnado's, and we have, as resource centres, schools—residential and day schools—for handicapped
494
children at which teachers are already attending and receiving tuition.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Young: The improvement of the facilities for training teachers s of course one of the priority areas identified by the Warnock Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger has quite rightly said. I should like to assure her that the Government recognise the need to improve the spread of knowledge about special needs and special education among all teachers and to provide for more opportunities for teachers who wish to acquire extra qualifications or training to do so. We do not agree—and this is the difference between us—that this kind of requirement should be imposed by primary legislation.
It is not even a requirement of the Act that teachers should hold any qualification at all. This has always been accepted as one of the matters to be regulated by statutory instrument, under which the Secretary of State could make such requirements as were appropriate from time to time. This principle was endorsed as recently as last year, when Parliament passed Section 27 of the 1980 Education Act, giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations requiring teachers to possess such qualifications as might be determined. It is under those regulations that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will prescribe not only the basic qualifications needed for teachers, but also any additional qualifications for special purposes, such as those at present required by teachers of blind, deaf and partially-hearing children. This is the way in which we think it is right to continue to prescribe teachers' qualifications, since it allows the Secretary of State to take account not only of what may be ideally desirable, but also of what is possible, given the availability of courses, and of the precise needs of different situations. It also means that, since specific qualifications are prescribed, the local authorities, the governors and the teachers are in no doubt whether or not a particular teacher is qualified for a particular post.
May I therefore turn, with that background information, to the effects of this amendment. The amendment bites on that part of Clause 2 which itself amends Section 8 of the 1944 Act—the point the noble Lord, Lord Somers, made. That section is the one which sets out the responsibility of the local education authorities to ensure that there are sufficient schools available for the children in their area. Section 8(2)(c) requires them in carrying out this duty to have regard to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who suffer from any disability of mind or body by providing special educational treatment. What this Bill does is to bring that duty up to date by substituting the new terminology.
The noble Baroness asked me a quite specific point about the provisions under the Burnham Committee for teachers' pay. I would like to confirm that all teachers in special schools are on special scales, which means that they are paid more than other teachers. Teachers of the blind and deaf have to undergo extra training to acquire a special qualification which entitles them to one increment above other teachers in special schools. Other teachers in special schools who undergo recognised extra training voluntarily also receive

495
one extra increment. I regret to tell my noble friend Lord Renton that I have not got the statistics but I will write to him about them. I know he asked about the matter at Second Reading and I will get them to him before we proceed to the nextstage of the Bill.
I think the difference between what has always been accepted as present practice, which I have outlined and which the Bill brings up to date, and this amendment is that if the Committee were to accept this amendment local education authorities would be under a duty when considering the provision of schools for their area to take into account the supply of suitably qualified or experienced teachers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, will know, when they are considering their provision, a local authority does not decide, if there is a shortage of mathematics teachers, that it will not have a secondary school. Naturally it is the job of the authority to provide the teachers, but it is not done that way round. We would be providing a completely new system under the Education Acts. We would be moving to amend the Education Acts in a way which is certainly not intended under this Bill. I think that without extensive consultation with all our partners in the education service it would not be possible to accept an amendment of this kind.
I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will recognise that we are mindful of the importance of training, and quite particularly the point she raised about in-service training, which will, of course, be very necessary particularly for schools that are going to accept handicapped children.
When identifying within their own schools children with special educational needs, teachers will need some training in identifying and then meeting their educational needs. As the Government are aware of the importance of in-service training, our expenditure plans for 1983–84 make provision for the release of teachers for in-service training at a similar level to that in the recent past. Local authorities are fully aware of this, though it is, of course, for local educational authorities to determine their priorities for expenditure within the resources made available to them.
If I may summarise the arguments about this, I hope I have set out what the present position is under the Education Acts with regard to the requirements for teachers, to indicate that we have amended the 1944 Act to bring the terminology up to date. In this way we believe the provisions of the Bill are those which have been accepted as the proper way to make arrangements for the employment of teachers. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendment which the noble Baroness has moved.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the noble Baroness for her clear exposition of the difficulties, of which I am well aware. In fact, I was encouraged by Section 27, which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations, to hope that we might have heard that she proposes to make regulations regarding the training of teachers who will work within the scope of this Bill.
On the question of the Burnham payments, of course I know that teachers in special schools get slight increases of money, but I thought the intention of this Bill was not only to get as many of the children as possible out of the special schools but that some of
496
the teachers will have to come over too; we shall need their expert and their experience. Are we saying that a teacher, who has been working in a special school and getting the extra allowance, and who then goes over to teaching perhaps even more difficult children in an ordinary school, is to have a cut in salary? I am sorry if I did not make that clear. That is one of my anxieties, and I know it is shared widely.
I wish I shared the faith of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in thinking that telling the local educational authorities to make special education provision is automatically going to mean a generous release of their teachers for in-service training. I am afraid many of them may wish to do so—and I was glad to hear the noble Baroness say she was doing her best about their financial difficulties—but at the end of the day they are under a lot of pressure to economise. I very much hope this will not be one of the fields where they cut back. The noble Baroness spoke of keeping the level up to what it was in the recent past. If that is all we are going to do we are not taking the system further forward at all—we are standing still—so we could put this Bill on one side. I will read carefully what the noble Baroness has said, and of course there are a lot of discussions to be held about this. I would hope that in the near future she might be able to tell the House of some plans, some intentions, some consultations which will make us feel that something is really happening in this field. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 7, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 20, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) Where a local education authority arrange special educational provision for a child, it shall be the duty of the authority to secure that he is educated in an ordinary school except where the nature or severity of the child's special needs is such that education in an ordinary school, even if supplementary aids and services are provided, cannot be achieved satisfactorily.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 is concerned with integration, and integration of course is the central structural question dealt with in the Bill. The general intention of the clause, to impose a duty on education authorities to integrate the education of handicapped children with that of other children, is widely welcomed in this House. The object of this amendment is to seek to provoke some discussion as to whether Clause 2(2) is drawn too narrowly. Is it worded too cautiously? Do the conditions stated in the subsection as the Bill now stands impose discriminatory limitations on the right of children with special educational needs to attend ordinary schools, and also on the rights of parents in this connection?
Conditions (b) and (c) impose conditions on the handicapped child that do not apply to other children. It must, of course, be recognised that education in an ordinary school is not always a practicable proposition,

497
and this is taken care of in the amendment by the phrase:
"except where the nature or severity of the child's special needs is such that education in an ordinary school, even if supplementary aids and services are provided, cannot be achieved satisfactorily".
I attach a good deal of importance to the phrase:
"even if supplementary aids and services are provided",
because for one thing it indicates that they should be provided.
The phrase,"the efficient use of resources"would disappear if the amendment were agreed to, and it seems that that could well be an excuse for avoiding integration. The object of the amendment is to limit the conditions to the minimum essential and to make the right to integration more absolute. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I find myself supporting the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in what he has said. So far as I can tell at this moment, and subject to what my noble friend may say from the Front Bench, I should have thought that his amendment probably does achieve the purpose which he has designed for it. As I said on Second Reading, we at MENCAP are very unenthusiastic about integration. We realise that integration has many advantages for many of the physically disabled and for many others, but not so far as the mentally handicapped are concerned. I have discussed this with a great many people: with parents of the mentally handicapped; recently with two headmasters of special schools; with two advisers to local education authorities on special education; and, indeed, with a director of education as well, and I cannot find any one of the people with whom I have discussed it who says that there ought to be integration into ordinary schools of those who are suffering from mental handicap.
As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, if that becomes the emphasis in the Bill there are some local authorities, a minority perhaps, who will regard it as an excuse for ducking their responsibilities as fas as special schools are concerned. But of course there is also the point that besides adding to the intellectual difficulties of the mentally handicapped on finding themselves in an ordinary school, it could add to their sense of inferiority, which is there anyway, and therefore sometimes create emotional and psychological difficulties for them. Therefore I feel very strongly indeed about this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, and I think, that subsection (2) as it stands, even when read with subsection (3), gives too good an opportunity to local authorities to lean upon integration instead of going for special education. I hope that my noble friend will understand that there are very strong feelings indeed about this, and even if she cannot accept the amendment, I hope that between now and Report stage she will undertake to see whether the two subsections of this clause can be modified in a way which meets the case which has been so clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I, too, would like to support the amendment. I do not in the least mind if Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 cannot be called because, if this amendment is carried, the points will
498
be carried admirably. This amendment reflects provisions already made in the United States 1975 legislation concerning the education of all handicapped children. That was six years ago, and it is high time that we had it here too. It also appears to have other advantages. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, would agree that it covered her ESN children. The point which the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, made about the danger of one ordinary school in the area becoming virtually the special school would also be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, seems to think that it would cover the points about the mentally handicapped as well. Therefore, I give it my wholehearted support.
Lord Digby: We have heard from both the noble Lords who have spoken that local authorities would use this as an excuse. It seems to me that the present two subsections are very clear. The one which it is proposed to put in their place is much more vague. It says:
"except where the nature or severity of the child's special needs".
It is not as clear as subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c).
I think that there is quite a misconception as to how local authorities view their responsibilities. Everyone in your Lordships' House always tries to say that locally elected representatives should be free to follow their own ways and not be dictated to the whole time by central Government. The present wording includes"the efficient use of resources". That essentially is something which local authorities must take into account. It is all very well to say that we are so mean that we will try to use it as an excuse for not doing something. The fact of life is that if one thing is put into the programme something else almost certainly suffers. It is the job of the local authority to weigh up the alternative uses of their resources and to consider the best way to use them. They are the locally elected people. I feel that subsections (2) and (3) (a), (b) and (c) give quite clear instructions to local authorities and I hope that the Government will resist this amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to follow up what the previous noble Lord said about "the efficient use of resources". I find it quite disturbing because the Bill does not contain any resources at all. So the Government are saying to local authorities "Let us have some efficient use of resources". Is not that what local government are doing all the time? That is what they are doing all the time without the Government telling them to do it. They try to use as efficiently as possible the money that they are allocated. It may be that some local authorities will decide that the most efficient use of their resources would be in connection with grammar schools and assisted school places. However, it may be that another local authority would take the view that, because they have a large urban population with a lot of children who are suffering deprivation, the efficient use of their resources would be in connection with greater provision for special education.
I should have thought that the deletion of "the efficient use of resources"was a good thing. The right word does not come quickly to my mind, but to be quite candid I think that it is a cheek for the Government

499
to include it in this way when they are not offering us anything. In fact, in the other place it was said time and time again that there is nothing new in the Bill: it is building upon the good practice of local authorities. What it is saying to those authorities who are not very good is, "Take a leaf out of this authority's book or that authority's book". I would suggest that some local authorities could quite easily take a leaf out of the City of Birmingham's book. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because it is much more positive than the clause that we have in the Bill.
Baroness David: I, too, should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because it seems to me that it gets rid of the three discriminatory limitations contained in subsection (3), which I find not at all satisfactory. The amendment makes the whole Bill very much more positive, which I think is a good thing.
I was rather surprised at the reception given to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because he seemed to think that it greatly strengthens the special school side of things. Obviously, we must have special schools; we all agree about that. But I thought that the main point of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, was to make the whole thing very much more positive, that as far as possible children should be educated in ordinary schools. The amendment strengthens the Bill where, in my view, it is weak now.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Young: I think that it would be helpful to the Committee if, once again, I attempted to explain what it is that the Government are trying to do in Clause 2. The importance of Clause 2(2) is that this is a statement—a central statement—of intent about integration. It makes it clear that provided certain conditions are met, children with statements must be educated in ordinary schools. This, as I have understood it, is a point that I thought would have been welcomed by all noble Lords from all parts of the Committee, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and others who have taken an interest in this matter. After all, it goes some way towards Section 10 of the 1976 Act, which is repealed by this Bill, but it gives this central statement of intent which Mrs. Warnock and her committee recommended on special education. It refers, of course, only to children with statements, because other children with special educational needs will be educated in ordinary schools as a matter of course. By and large, if the ordinary school can cope with a child's needs, there will be no point in conducting a full-scale assessment and making a statement for that child.
Therefore, we are talking about children with statements. I would be very sad if, in fact, I thought that local authorities would lean on the concept of integration instead of special education as a kind of cheap method of helping children with special educational needs. I am, of course, aware that this is a fear that has been expressed many times during the passage of this Bill, but I think what the noble Lord, Lord Digby, said is true; and although it is some years since I was in local government, I do not have the slightest doubt
500
that when this Bill is on the statute book and it has its accompanying circular, or whatever goes with it, local education authorities will sit down and consider what provision they will make.
I really do not think that I want a lecture from the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, or from anyone else on the subject of resources because, after all, her Government presided for over three years during which time there were cuts in the resources provided for the education service. The noble Baroness and I, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jeger and Lady David, and everyone else who is concerned with this, know that whatever Government are in power, when there is a 30 per cent. drop in the school population, that Government will almost certainly look at the amount of money that is going into the education service. We all know that to be true.
What is equally true is that all the evidence that we have is that local education authorities have not, in fact, cut back on the money that they have been using for special education but, I think that it is because—the noble Lord, Lord Digby, is perhaps too modest to say so—people in local government are actually interested in service, and they are particularly interested in service to children with special educational needs. Whatever other economies have been made, they have not been made in this area. Indeed, quite considerable amounts of money are available. We estimate that approximately £240 million is spent on maintained special schools annually, and between £50 million and £60 million is spent on fees in non-maintained and independent schools. Of course, further money is spent on health service support and on education for children with special needs in ordinary schools; we believe that altogether this may amount to a further £200 million spent on various support services to special education. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to give the figure, which I gave on Second Reading, of £500 million annually as an estimate of the amount of money that local authorities spend on special education.
We are saying to local authorities: "You have this money; this is what you are currently spending. Are you spending it in the wisest possible way? Should you look at the provision that you have and perhaps get better value for it? Can you do more with it? Can you alter the way in which you spend it?"It is a very considerable sum of money, and I do not have the slightest doubt that when the Bill goes on the statute book local authorities will look at this aspect. Many of them are already implementing the spirit of the Bill because the Bill builds on best practice in local authorities now.
The conditions in subsection (3), which qualify subsection (2) and with which everyone has been concerned, are those which must be met before a child with special educational needs, of a degree which require the protection of a statement, can be educated in an ordinary school. First, the local authority must take account of the views of the child's parent. This is important because not all parents will wish their child to attend an ordinary school, and it must be acknowledged that whatever the nature of the child's handicap not all children will thrive in an ordinary school setting—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made very well.
Subsection (3)(a) states that an ordinary school

501
must be able to make the special educational provision required for the child. This applies not only to the facilities and resources already available in the ordinary school, but also to any specialised educational or health services which it may be possible to arrange in support of an individual child in a particular ordinary school.
Subsection (3)(b) makes the placement in an ordinary school of a child with a statement conditional upon it being compatible with the provision of efficient education of the other children already in that school. This seems to me to be a reasonable condition. Clearly, if we take the case of an emotionally disturbed child who has failed in an ordinary school setting, it would not be right to have that child put back into the school and to continue in that school to disrupt the work of other children.
Finally, there is the condition in subsection (3)(c) where the placement is compatible with the efficient use of resources. This, of course, is a term which is used in other Education Acts and I suggest that it is reasonable. We are talking here of resources of all kinds: equipment, teachers and the deployment of other specialised services. These cannot, in fact, just be dissipated overnight, and I do not think that any Government could afford to duplicate resources in every school in support of individual children. That is not to say that planned integration cannot take place, but it will come about in small units attached to ordinary schools, or with one school perhaps specialising in admitting a particular kind of handicapped pupil.
These then are the conditions which must be satisfied, and the amendment makes no reference to consultation with parents. It contains no mention of the effect on the education of other children in a school or the efficient use of resources. I should like to make one further point on that. We must remember that we are referring to all sorts of children with special educational needs. One fact which has emerged is that special educational needs are now changing. For example, very few children are now classified as"delicate", which is one of the 10 categories of handicap which was not at all uncommon 30 or 40 years ago. Sadly, there are many children who would now be categorised as maladjusted, disruptive or as suffering from some sort of emotional difficulty. We must take into account in this Bill the kind of handicaps that we are looking at and how they would be dealt with in ordinary schools or in special schools, as appropriate.
I have gone into this explanation in some considerable detail. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I hope he will recognise that I have tried to answer the points that he has raised; to explain why the Bill is drafted as it is, why we have accepted Mrs. Warnock's main statement of intent, that wherever possible children will be educated in an ordinary school; but we have felt it right to qualify it in these three ways to take account not only of the needs of parents, but also the education of other children in the schools and, clearly, the efficient use of resources.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Banks, replies, if indeed he is going to do so, I should just like to say a few brief words. Having heard what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter, I now have a better understanding of subsection (3) and of the implications. Speaking for myself, rather than
502
having this matter brought to a decision as this moment, I should like to consider what my noble friend has said. I believe it would be an advantage if your Lordships did not reach a conclusion this afternoon but were to consider the matter further—especially in view of the criticism that has been made of the drafting of the amendment. Therefore, I make this plea to the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
Lord Banks: I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I believe that the object which I mentioned at the beginning, of provoking some discussion as to whether the limitations contained in this particular subsection are in fact desirable or not, has been achieved. We have had some useful discussion. The object I had in mind was to draft and present something that was less restricitive than the Bill. I was not convinced that the three restrictions imposed in the Bill were necessary. I am not fully convinced now that they are all necessary.
I do not agree that the reference to resources is essential at this particular point, when one is stating these principles. The position in respect of parents is dealt with very thoroughly in other parts of the Bill, but nevertheless I should like to consider further what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am grateful to her for the trouble she has taken and for the detail into which she went in order to reply to the points which were mind. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 27, after ("is") insert ("or could reasonably be made").
The noble Lord said: This amendment represents another attempt to strengthen the commitment to integration. The Bill imposes a duty to integrate, provided that educating a child in an ordinary school is compatible with the child receiving the special educational provision that he requires. But, in view of the general absence at the moment of facilities in ordinary schools for children with special needs, one wonders how often this condition will be met. Would not this provision in the Bill prevent integration from taking place in so far as children for whom a statement is maintained are concerned?
If the duty to integrate is to have any meaning, local education authorities need to be given the duty to integrate not just where education in an ordinary school is already compatible with the child receiving the special educational provision that he requires—since this would be so limited at the moment—but also where it could reasonably be made compatible. If one were to incorporate that into the Bill it would be building in some pressure for change. The phrase "the efficient use of resources" would remain in the Bill and would ensure that local education authorities would not be saddled with unmanageable obligations. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I listened very carefully to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, but I am not at all sure how one would test" reasonableness" in the context of this amendment. If the provision in an ordinary school meets the requirement set out in this

503
subsection, then the local education authority has a duty to make such arrangements. On the other hand, if provision cannot be made in an ordinary school because it is incompatible with those conditions, then the local education authority would have to consider special educational provisions for the child in another setting.
Each individual case will have to be judged on its merits. If the local education authority can reasonably meet the conditions in subsection (3), then it will obviously do so. If the parents feel that the authority is acting unreasonably in proposing a special school rather than an ordinary school for their child, then they have an opportunity to appeal to a local appeal committee, and subsequently to the Secretary of State under the provisions in Clause 8 of the Bill. I have looked at this amendment very carefully but I do not feel it adds anything that is not already in the Bill. I believe it would be difficult to test the meaning of "reasonable" under those circumstances, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Banks: I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if she feels that, were it possible to test "reasonableness"and to satisfy her on that one point, it would be desirable to have some provision of this kind, which would indicate that local authorities are supposed to take some action to put schools into a position whereby they can meet some needs which they may not be able to meet at the time of the first consideration?
Baroness Young: I believe it is always a most dangerous thing to answer a question on a hypothetical situation. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I am too old a debater to be caught quite so easily—although because of the way that the noble Lord puts his argument it all sounds very convincing. If the noble Lord looks at this clause and considers his amendment as it would read if written into the Bill, and addresses himself to the situation as it would be in a local education authority, he will see that his amendment is actually unnecessary.
If under subsection (2) a local authority has this duty towards the child and believes that it can make provision in an ordinary school, then the local authority must make that provision. The difficulty is that what may be possible in one set of circumstances may not be possible in another. The noble Lord might say that this might be the definition of "reasonableness", but the definition might possibly hinge on a particular teacher with the qualifications to manage a particular child in a particular school. Therefore, it might be appropriate in that case but the same circumstances might not apply in another school, which might have advantages in some other respect.
When I say to the noble Lord that I do not believe that "reasonableness" would add anything it is because, in the context of an exact situation in a local education authority, I do not believe that the officials or the committee taking the decision would take a different decision if this amendment were incorporated into the Bill than they would if it were not. They will have to consider each case on its merits, taking into
504
account the needs of the child, the views of the parents, the circumstances of the school and the nature of the handicap—all of which must be reviewed each year if the child has a statement. The circumstances could change and the officials or committee might come to a different conclusion at a later stage, because that would be quite proper in their reconsideration of the case. To add "reasonableness"—which would have to be applied to the first case, the second case and the third as the child progresses—would not improve the Bill. It would simply add to the Bill itself without necessarily adding anything to the decision.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her further elucidation. I should like to consider her remarks at leisure, and with that in view I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 33, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) the efficient use of resources in respect only of the choice of ordinary school in which the child is to be educated.").
The noble Baroness said: We have already had a long discussion about the efficient use of resources and so I will not go into that subject at length. In Section 6 of the Education Act 1980 applying to ordinary children, there is a mention of efficient education and the efficient use of resources in slightly different words, and therefore it is probably necessary to have the wording suggested in this Bill. But I should point out that in respect of ordinary children the choice is between one school and another within the ordinary school system. I imagine the criteria to be taken into account are the numbers in school, the distance to be travelled, et cetera.
As drafted, this Bill provides that the criteria are to be applied in respect of whether the handicapped child is allowed into the ordinary school system or whether it is forced inappropriately into the special school system. Therefore, as drafted it really does a very different thing. This amendment seeks to ensure that the same criteria are applied to the non-handicapped children. As I said at Second Reading, the dice are rather loaded against the handicapped child from the start, and what this amendment seeks to do is to redress the balance. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support this amendment. It has been said to me on a number of occasions when I have been discussing this Bill with people actively involved in special education, that the 1944 Act deliberately discriminated in favour of children with special educational needs. If we are not careful, this Bill is going to do exactly the opposite. This amendment is one chance for us to redress the balance a little, so I hope that we shall have support for it.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Young: As the noble Baroness has said, this amendment in effect works on the same principle

505
as the amendment that she moved earlier, which we discussed and upon which the Committee voted. The effect of it would be to qualify the condition that the education of a child with a statement in ordinary school should be compatible with the efficient use of resources. In fact, it would require local education authorities to provide a suitably equipped ordinary school for children with physical disabilities, and this amendment would then have had the effect of allowing local authorities to direct the child to that school and not to another ordinary school selected by the parents. I think that is how this would work.
We had a long discussion on the earlier amendment and I tried to indicate the view of the Government upon it. Again there is some misunderstanding of this term "the efficient use of resources". This is a term which is used in the 1980 Education Act: I am sure that the noble Baroness will recall our discussions upon it. Interestingly, one of the firm impressions I came away with after the discussions on that Act, and the many discussions we had particularly on the needs of children with special educational needs, was that as far a possible we should make things, and make the Bill we were thinking of, apply in a similar way to children with special educational needs as, for want of a better term, to ordinary children.
In this sense, using this particular terminology is in fact using the terminology of that Bill. Where it applies, the efficient use of resources does apply. At the end of the day I hope that the noble Baroness will take comfort from the figures I gave about resources; about the attitudes of local education authorities in the use of them; about their concern for children with special educational needs. I am bound to say, from having visited a number of local education authorities and having looked quite particularly at the provision they make for special education, that although there is a variety in it—and clearly authorities vary in the provision that they make—I am always conscious of the dedication of the people working in this field.
If it is the implication that somehow local authorities will not use their resources to the best of their ability to help children with special educational needs, I think that is not so. I think they will use their resources as well as they can. I agree that we should like more resources, but one of the objects of this Bill is to get local authorities to look at what they have got—and it is a considerable amount—and make quite sure that they are using it in a way which fulfils the wishes of Mrs. Warnock and her Committee and the others of us who would like to see those principles carried into law.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure that I agree with her. I perhaps did not make it clear when I was explaining the amendment that I really did not think that the choice for the ordinary child and the choice for the disabled child were anything like the same. Although the 1980 Act and this Bill use the same words about resources and education, we are choosing in the case of the ordinary child between two schools within the same school system, and for the disabled child whether it is forced into a special school where it might be educated in an ordinary school, or whether it can go to the ordinary neighbourhood school.
Baroness Young: One of the facts that Mrs. Warnock identified is that we are talking about perhaps one in six children about 20 per cent. of children, who may, at some stage or other, have special educational needs. We are also talking about those children who are currently in special education and who, under this Bill, would be subject to a statement, and that is about 2 per cent. of the school population. It is very much smaller. So there are quite a number of children whose parents will state a preference for a school and will therefore, although those children have special educational needs, be able to choose from a number of schools.
What we have tried to do is to give parents whose children will be subject to a statement again the opportunities to be consulted about the statement; to comment on the statement in draft; to comment on the statement when it is finally made; and if they are not satisfied with the arrangements that are being made with their child to take that case to an appeal committee, and finally to the Secretary of State, if that should prove to be necessary.
I would hope that during the course of this long process the parents of children with statements, would have a great many opportunities on which they could talk about their children and the provision that is going to be made for them with the local education authority, so that there would be the maximum understanding about how their needs would be met, and the provisions that the local authority would be making for them. Those are the ones with statements, and there would be others who will not be subject to statements but who will still have special educational needs. They will be in the majority, and they also come under this Bill. Therefore, for them it is even closer to the provisions for ordinary children.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I can appreciate that the whole difficulty of this Bill is that we are embracing such a vastly differing lot of children. But the noble Baroness would agree that with the failure of my Amendment No. 5, if a purely disabled child happened to live in a local education authority area where there was not a suitable school, that would be a child who would have a statement and would thus be treated in this different way in the judging of resources as to where it goes.
Baroness Young: It is difficult to make a generalisation about all children with physical disabilities. I have seen a child in a wheelchair in a primary school, and clearly in those circumstances the local education authority was able to make completely adequate arrangements for that child. I should like to see more children so educated. Indeed, it is probably rather easier in primary schools, which are nearly always one-storey buildings in any event. I cannot possibly speak for all local education authorities, but it may well be that there will be others where such suitable arrangements can be made. What I think we cannot write into the Bill is the compulsion to say that all this must be done as soon as the Bill is passed. We must work towards this aim.
We are both in agreement about the long-term provision and what the efficient use of resources means. As resources allow, so I think more schools will become

507
available for children with physical disabilities, or deaf children, or blind children, as the noble Baroness said, or indeed other—ESN(M) children, who can be taught in these schools very effectively.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am obliged to the Minister for her reply and think I shall have to be guided by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in this matter, as the amendment is also in her name. She hoped we would be able to get it through with a reasonable amount of support, but I wonder whether she agrees with me that that may not be the case and that, in any event, the Benches are not very full.
Baroness David: It might be wise for the noble Baroness to withdraw it; we can, if necessary, return to the subject at the next stage.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations the factors that are to be taken into account in determining what constitutes ' efficient education ' in subsection (3)(b) above.").
The noble Baroness said: Following the addition of Section 10 to the Education Act 1976, there was a great deal of consultation on the factors that were to be considered in deciding whether the education of a disabled child in an ordinary school was impracticable or incompatible with the provision of "efficient instruction" in the school, or would involve "unreasonable public expenditure", to quote the words of that section. Apart from that, the proposed condition of "the efficient use of resources" is no less difficult to define, and that also will require similar consultation. The factors governing the definition of those conditions are far too important to be left to the discretion of individual local authorities, some of which are good and some bad. We want the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulation the factors that are to be taken into account. In other parts of the Bill he will make regulations about this and that, so I do not think it unreasonable to ask for this to be done also. It would be a help not only to local authorities but to parents when they are considering whether to appeal and so on. This is a reasonable amendment which I hope the Government will quickly accept.
Baroness Young: The difficulty with this amendment is that so many factors would have to be taken into account that it would be very difficult for regulations to cover all eventualities. I believe that local education authorities will understand the term "efficient education" in subsection 3(b) when they are faced with a decision whether or not to propose a placement for a particular child with a statement in a particular ordinary school. Their aim would be to secure that the proposed placement would not cause the education of the other children in the school to be impaired, for example by requiring the teacher to give such attention to the
508
child that the needs of other children were neglected or where the child was a persistently disruptive force during learning activities. There would of course be a variety of other factors which would need to be considered arising from the individual circumstances of different schools, and regulations could never cover all eventualities.
It would be very difficult to take all such conditions into account, but I am sure the noble Baroness. who is well-versed in the difficulties there are in school, will know that there are teachers who find children who are persistently disruptive, who could well be said to have special educational needs and who, if taught in an ordinary school, would make it impossible for many of the other children to learn, because so much of the teacher's time would be taken up with the one disruptive child. That would be the kind of circumstance in which the needs of the other children would have to be taken into account before such a child was placed in an ordinary school. There is, therefore, that side to it and it is an important factor.
It seems to me that the factors to be taken into account in determining what constitutes "efficient education" would have to be so broad in individual circumstances that they could almost become meaningless; therefore, such regulations would be very difficult to frame and we believe they would be quite unnecessary. I hope the noble Baroness will feel she can accept this argument. I do not know, of course, the circumstances which, when she had some responsibilities for these matters, were considered in relation to the 1976 Act, but I imagine they would have been very difficult to frame and, as she will know, that part of Section 10 was not brought into effect. It may well be, therefore—although I do not know whether this has been the case—that the difficulty of framing such regulations prevented it being done. If the noble Baroness considers the matter, I think she will agree that it is better to leave it as it is than go further. I hope she will accept that explanation of the reason why I cannot accept the amendment and will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness David: I accept what the Minister says—that it is an extremely difficult area to put into words, so to speak—but I would ask her whether, if I withdraw the amendment, we could have a guarantee that consultations and discussions will take place with local authority associations so they may all have a general view of what is expected and what is meant by these phrases.
Baroness Young: I understand that following the measure becoming law there would be a circular and, as the noble Baroness will be aware, these matters are always discussed with local authorities; so I would imagine, as one would be explaining things in much more detail than the primary legislation can give, that these would be the sort of things that would be discussed with local authorities, as we are doing with a whole variety of matters all the time.
I do not know whether there is anything more I can add. I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what the noble Baroness said, and then I could either have a word with her before the next stage of the Bill or write to her on the subject, when I might be able to say something

509
further, but what I have explained is my understanding of how we should carry out the consultation procedures under the Bill. We have, of course, already discussed with local authorities the framing of the legislation and we have no reason to think that they will not understand the term as it is written in the Bill.
Baroness David: With that partial assurance—that there will be consultations and a circular, which will at any rate outline some of the factors that are to be taken into account—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 34, after ("authority") insert—
("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: This is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 15. I expect to be told that this amendment is unnecessary and that good local authorities will in any event be doing what paragraphs (b) and (c) ask should be done. There is a misprint in Amendment No. 15 as printed; it should refer to there being on its advisory staff an "officer" and not an "office". It is extremely important that local authorities have a well-equipped advisory staff, and we are here discussing an area which has been affected by the recent cuts imposed on local authorities and the education service.
I know personally what an enormous help it can be to have a good careers officer, someone who is well acquainted with special educational needs; it makes a tremendous difference, especially when there is a lot of unemployment, particularly among young people, to have special help in that way. A good careers officer, in addition to the ordinary advisory staff who go round the schools, can be an enormous help; so I hope this provision can be written into the Bill. If authorities already have these officers, well and good; but it would make it a duty for the others to have them also.
The designation of a special school as a resource centre was a recommendation of the Warnock Committee, and I should like to read a little of the paragraph of the report which deals with this point, since it puts it much better than I could:
"While all special schools should provide support for teachers in ordinary schools, we envisage that some of them will be formally established as resource centres, that is centres of specialist expertise and of research in special education, in which teachers in the area would be closely involved. Such centres would be used for curriculum development and in-service education for teachers, and also as places to which parents and other professionals could refer for advice on special education and where parents could meet each other".
I think that that is an extremely important point:
"The preparation, storage and loan of specialised equipment and materials for use elsewhere, and the development of audiovisual materials for training would support the main functions outlined. In some instances the centres might also provide bases for advisory teachers working with pupils in ordinary schools".
That, too, I think is a very important point:
"The number of such centres which it would be practicable to have in any one area would depend on the nature and size of the area and the type of special schools in that area. In a large
510
conurbation it might be feasible to think in terms of a number of such centres: for example, one for the deaf and partially hearing; another for the physically handicapped; another for children with severe learning difficulties; and another for children with emotional or behavioural difficulties. We therefore recommend that within each local authority area some special schools should be designated and developed as resource centres".
Paragraph 18.7 also deals with that point and states that it is hoped that resource centres will be centres
"not only of support for teachers and for parents, but also of research in special education".
I feel that the Warnock Committee made a very good case for this proposal, and I hope that the Government can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I can understand why the noble Baroness put down the amendment, since, as she quite rightly said, Mrs. Warnock and her committee made this point very firmly in their report. I appreciate that the objective of the noble Baroness in the amendment is to secure not only effective advisory staff, but also a special school which might be a resource centre. However, there is a difficulty about the amendment. If it so wishes, the local education authority can employ advisory staff with experience and qualifications in special education, and I have no doubt that most, if not all, local education authorities do so. The local education authority also has power to designate a special school as a resource centre, and equally I have no doubt that many do that, too. However, it would be going very much against our devolved system of education if in primary legislation we were to lay down that local education authorities must have such an officer on their advisory staff and that they must designate a special school as a resource centre. I feel that it would very much go against the basis of our relationship with our partners in the education service—the local education authorities—if we attempted to lay down in legislation detailed descriptions as to how LEAs should develop their services.
It is for that constitutional reason that the Government cannot accept the amendment, though, as I say, I have no doubt that many authorities in fact do precisely what the amendment seeks. I quite see that this is very desirable to do in principle, but that is very different from saying that we should incorporate it into primary legislation in this way in the Bill.
Baroness David: That is not a very satisfactory reply. It seems to me that when it suits them the Government constantly place duties on local authorities, yet do not do so at other times. In some instances the local authority is given some freedom, but on other occasions the situation is very much reversed. I should like to think about this matter, since I might return with the amendment, or something very similar, at Report stage. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert ("by submitting on a prescribed form to the Secretary of State an annual report which shall be analysed, either in his Department or by a relevant organisation.")
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment as

511
a probing amendment. Clause 2(4) of the Bill states:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to keep under review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision".
My amendment is much more specific than that. First, would not the Minister agree that perhaps it would be helpful to every local authority in the country if every year each local authority had to produce statistics in a well-devised form? Then each local authority could not only monitor its own work, but also compare its work with that of other local authorities. Local authorities would be able to learn one from the other. Therefore, would it not be better to have a prescribed form for every local authority to complete at the end of each year, as is carried out in relation to other Acts of Parliament, including all the children Acts? The Children and Young Persons Act prescribes a form which the local authorities complete and the relevant figures are published each year by the Department of Health and Social Security.
I feel that other noble Lords are perhaps worried about the monitoring of this new venture. The noble Baroness, Lady David, in her Amendment No. 14, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his Amendment No. 69, possibly show concern about the future monitoring of the effects of this quite outstanding Bill. Unless there is monitoring both locally and nationally, we shall not know whether we are following the right lines; nor shall we know how effective the Bill and the new procedures are proving to be. I ask the Minister whether she would not agree that the requirement ought to be much more specific.
I am aware that Form 7F from the Department of Education and Science requires every school to notify its pupils, and presumably handicapped pupils will be notified by means of that form. However, a number of children are not on school rolls. For instance, children in hospital, or at home receiving a different form of education, will not be included on Form 7F issued each year by the Department of Education and Science.
Other reports made recommendations in this respect. For instance, the Court Report recommended a triennial report, so that we could know what was happening in regard to child health. When the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was passed the Government commissioned the Office of Population and Census and as a result the Amelia Harris Survey was produced. So I would ask for much more specific monitoring to be carried out. I appreciate that the Government's answer will probably be that this arrangement would be costly to local authorities, but how otherwise are we to know whether we are being effective, whether we are throwing money away or are doing things in the right way?
I would just say that in my amendment I have said that this annual report should be analysed either in the Department of Education and Science or "by a relevant organisation". When I say "a relevant organisation", one of the organisations (and I am sure there are many others) would perhaps be, for instance, the National Children's Bureau, which is dealing with the National CoHORT and has already done a great deal of work on handicapped children—indeed, it has produced a book called Living with Handicapped—and on which
512
Dr. Kellmer Pringle, who has done so much for children in this country, was serving, and in fact directed. When she leaves in September her place will be taken by Professor Ronald Davie, who also helped to monitor the book on handicapped children. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment as a probing amendment, to learn something from the Minister.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in what she has just said; and I think she has outlined her amendment in a very practical way. I am also concerned especially as, if Warnock is taken to its final conclusion, we shall abolish categories altogether, which I think will be very difficult at the beginning. But if we are abolishing categories, there will be no way in which we shall be able to see whether there has been, for some reason, perhaps, an influx in, say, spina bifida, or an influx in blindness arising from the drugs being used in childbirth. If we do not have categories, that is going to cause a difficulty, I can see, but no doubt the noble Baroness will explain that at a later stage.
But why I am interested in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is because it will give an opportunity to the Government to say to a local authority, "We really feel that perhaps you ought to be doing a little better"—especially because (as, I repeat, was said so often in the other place) what is hoped from this Bill is that local authorities will learn the good practices, and they will not learn those good practices unless statistics and information are kept. Therefore, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
Baroness Young: Before turning to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, it might be helpful if I explained a little more what Clause 2(4) means. The Committee will see that, as the Bill stands, it places local education authorities under a duty to keep under review their arrangements for special educational provision. That duty cannot be discharged without positive action somewhere in the authority. As I see it, local education authorities will have special education sub-committees which from time to time will consider aspects of special educational provision, and all authorities will conduct an annual appraisal of their provision in the context of their estimates.
I would see this as being the most probable time when a local education authority will in fact review their arrangements for special educational provision each year. They will also review them, I can imagine, if, for example, in the context of falling rolls, they find that there are empty classrooms in a school; they may consider that this is an appropriate moment at which to make some kind of provision for children with special educational needs in that school because there is a classroom that is empty. I therefore see that the opportunities for making provision will occur at the time of the annual estimates, but might also occur at other times.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, raised a rather separate point, but a very important one, about the dissemination of good practice. Although authorities can of course learn from statistical information which the department publishes quite regularly, I think that

513
mostly they learn from the dissemination of good practice either at conferences, from HMI publications or from the meetings of professionals. This is important, and if standards are to rise it is very important that this good practice should be known among local authorities.
If I may now turn quite specifically to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I should like to assure her that comprehensive statistics are already collected and programmed on the department's computer, and we shall continue to require annual information on pupil numbers and on placements after this legislation has been enacted. We do in fact collect statistics on education otherwise than at school on Form 21M; we collect information on the education of children in hospital, on Form 7M, and for that at special schools on Form 21M, as for others. The basis of the statistics in future is being reconsidered in the light of the abolition of the categories of handicap.
In addition, of course, the department receives and considers bids for the special education building programme annually; and, of course, we talk regularly to local authorities about their plans in this context. So I can assure the noble Baroness that my department has a great deal of relevant information from local authorities, and I believe that, with this, we can meet the point that she feels is not being met by subsection (4). But, as I say, in putting subsection (4) into this Bill we are not simply relying on that. I hope I have said enough to indicate that we shall continue to collect these statistics, and this will give her and local education authorities generally the information that they require. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to thank the Minister for her explanation and for her comments. I have to say that I am not wholly convinced or happy because these facts and figures have been known to the DES, as she herself has said, and yet many of us know of children in mental hospitals, for instance, who have not been educated even if the facts have been known. However, this was a probing amendment. If I may, I should like to read in Hansard tomorrow what has been said, and reserve the right to bring the matter up again at Report stage, if necessary. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert ("and to submit to the Secretary of State within one year of the coming into force of this Act, for his approval, development plans detailing the systematic arrangements which will be made throughout the authority over the five years following the approval of the plan for the meeting of special educational needs in ordinary schools.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment which I moved last sought to put pressure on local education authorities to make provision in individual cases, but obviously there is a limit to the progress which can be made in this way. There must be an overall planned programme over a fixed period of years to improve the capacity of ordinary schools to provide for special educational needs. Integration will inevitably be phased in—it cannot happen all at once—but the object
514
must be to see that there is no delay in that phasing.
The report Integrating the Disabled, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already referred this afternoon, had this to say on the subject:
"A major object of special education policy over the next ten years should therefore be the planned introduction of a system of integrated education of the handicapped".
That report went on:
"Systematic planning of special provision is needed if imbalances in the availability of facilities are to be avoided and resources matched to needs".
The Warnock Committee have made this comment:
"We therefore recommend that each local education authority should have a comprehensive and long-term plan for special educational provision within which the arrangements for individual schools will take their place".
This amendment places a duty on local education authorities to produce to the Secretary of State within one year of the Act coming into force a five-year plan for meeting special educational needs in ordinary schools. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like strongly to support this amendment. I think everyone wants to see a bit of flesh on the bones of this Bill. People will begin to believe that the Government are serious in their intentions if the Government ask local authorities to submit to the Secretary of State some sort of development plan. I believe that some authorities are already making these plans, but we must encourage all authorities and not just the best ones to do this. This would not involve local authorities in more than a minimum amount of expense, but it would be something for them to aim at and would help them when they were applying for capital grants and so on to show that it was to fit in with a plan to make this Bill a better Bill and to make the Act work. f hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will press this amendment. I think it is an extremely important point.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I, too, should like to give this amendment my strong support. It is essential for ensuring integration. We have talked about the importance of the review. A five-year plan is even more important. I hope that the Government will accept it. It will be helpful to them. You need a systematic plan, particularly where resources are at a premium. No one would argue that integration can be achieved satisfactorily over night. It is important to encourage the LEAs to plan for what they hope to accomplish over a reasonable time. Without a planned approach, integration is unlikely to work satisfactorily.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I hesitate to oppose an amendment in this field, but I wonder whether, in fact, a five-year plan is going to be helpful. Shall we know the resources available in five years' time or not? Are we to guess at them? The important thing for this Bill is to alter the attitude of the local authorities and to use the resources, as they emerge from year to year, to the best advantage. I do not believe that making a plan for five years ahead would help.
Baroness David: May I reply to the noble Lord, Lord

515
Alexander? Maybe five years is the wrong length of time, but I think a plan is important. Maybe it should be a ten-year plan. But it is in line with a Warnock recommendation in chapter 7, paragraph 48. I quote:
"'We therefore recommend that each local education authority should have a comprehensive and long-term plan for special educational provision within which the arrangements for individual schools will take their place.".
It has good backing there. I hope that the coolness with which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, received this proposal will not affect the rest of the Committee. I think it would show good intentions and I am sure that if five years is not a suitable time, we should be happy to change it to ten years. I think the principle of a plan should be supported.
Baroness Faithfull: I think that the principle of a plan is magnificent; but in reality, it has not worked in the past for those of us who have been in local government. I remember that in another area we were asked to get out a ten-year plan. The officers of the local authority spent hours getting out a ten-year plan when suddenly the whole thing was reversed by a change of policy. All of our ten-year plans and all the work involved went for naught. Therefore, I think that it is important to have a plan within the local authority, but to produce a ten-year plan is quite unrealistic, based on experience.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I can add some warmth to Lady David after the coolness of Lord Alexander. I think that my noble friend Lady David said clearly in support that many local authorities were already looking at their special educational needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, all the educational authorities are having to look at the needs not only for special education but for primary and nursery schools, because of falling population. The need to look at special education, as Lady Young has said, is that there is a change of emphasis on the needs of the handicapped now. It is for this reason that many local authorities are looking forward to make sure that they are taking into account the new kind of education that is necessary, bearing in mind that many authorities are going to have to deal with more multiple handicaps in the future than they have in the past under special education.
To warm the ears of my noble friend Lady David, I would say that I have before me the report of the working party on the future of special education in Birmingham, which was published in March 1980 and is a thoroughgoing document. There are a few hundred pages with proposals for schools that they have got, the schools they might go into, the research which might be carried out. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is interested, I can let her have a copy of this, but no doubt her office already has one. It is important for local authorities to be looking forward into what is a real change of emphasis on special education which this Bill and the Warnock Report are showing to us.
Lord Wells-Pestell: I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not brush this on one side. I
516
think it would be very much out of character, with respect, if the noble Baroness were to do this. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has just said about a ten-year plan. That is much too long. But I do not see how we can plan the future without having some kind of guide as to the direction in which we are doing. Some of the difficulties we have encountered in the social welfare field have been due entirely to the fact that it has been so haphazard, that we have not sat down and thought about next year and the year after and the year after that.
Money will be tight for a good many years to come. We ought to know what our basic needs are for the future. We ought to say what we are prepared to do, having regard to the needs of the disabled and the importance of their being integrated as far as possible in our educational system. I hope the Minister will say that we need a plan. Whether it is of three or five years is relatively unimportant, but it is important that we get the local education authorities thinking of the problem in their own areas and what they could do along the lines suggested by some of my noble friends on this side.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think we ought to remember in what capacity we are operating now. This is not a Second Reading debate; it is Committee stage, where we are writing in detail the words of a statute. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is, in a way, letting down the noble Lord in what was a general admission. She seemed to be accepting the practical advice given by Lord Alexander with his great experience and then said that we ought to indicate our general good intentions. We ought not to try to generate genuine good intentions. We have to write into the statute, which people will adhere to, things which are practical and will pass the test of being realistic. To commit local authorities to have to work out detailed plans for a general intention which cannot, for practical reasons, be given effect to is wasting the time and diverting the attention of the authority from other things that they ought to be doing.
A general intention is very good. Who could disagree with the noble Baroness in wanting generally to give the impression as to how things ought to be better? But we are working out a statute which has to be hard, real and practical. I do not believe from the short debate that I have heard that it has passed that test. I hope that my noble friend will resist the appeals that come from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who always speaks with such charm, but on this occasion I am certain that he is asking somebody to give statutory authority to people virtually to waste their time.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Young: I always listen carefully to what is said in these debates, and particularly so on this Bill because we are not talking here about major party political matters. These are discussions on the best way to implement a Bill that we all wish to see on the statute book. Clearly, the Committee is divided upon this particular amendment. I was very interested in what my noble friend Lady Faithfull had to say about plans generally, because when I first became a member

517
of an education committee in 1960 (which was a very long time ago now, I realise) one of the first documents put into my hand was the development plan that was required under the 1944 Education Act which the City had drawn up and which everybody on the education committee clearly ought to have read.
It became very clear on first reading it that it was already out of date, and it became increasingly out of date as year succeeded year. This has been the fate of development plans: they have tended to restrict rather then encourage development. I believe that there is a danger that the welcome developments which suddenly come about because of better practice or better medical skills or what-you-will, which cannot be foreseen when the plan is drawn up, are not considered because they fall outside the plan. Indeed, development plans for primary and secondary schools which were required by Section 11 of the 1944 Education Act fell into disuse for precisely this kind of reason, and Section 11 was repealed last year in the 1980 Education Act.
Similarly, one of the problems with the law as it now stands in relation to the provision of further education—a matter to which we shall be turning our attention later—is that the general duties of LEAs to provide further education are couched in terms of schemes of further education which require the approval of the Secretary of State and then are mandatory upon the LEAs. Developments in the further education field have in many cases outstripped the schemes. This is one of the issues which the department are considering in their review of the law governing the provision of further education.
So there is this general difficulty about development plans. There is also a further detailed objection: the amendment deals only with special educational provision in ordinary schools. In other words, it is directed solely at plans for integration and the development of existing provision for the majority of children with special educational needs who are already receiving education in ordinary schools. The amendment leaves out the continuing development of special education which we have all agreed, and special schools will still be necessary in the future; yet, with declining rolls, this is an area where most changes are likely to occur in the next five years.
We believe that local education authorities must be given the maximum amount of flexibility in the use of their resources and we would not wish to place them under any undue constraint as to how and where they use these. This freedom will enable LEAs to develop imaginative schemes to integrate some of the pupils now in special schools.
I am quite certain that the document to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred, is an example of what a local authority has decided to do, and I am sure will do very well. But I have already indicated that the pace of change will often be directed by the availability of both human and financial resources. There is a great deal of difference between local authorities that have looked at this matter and decided that they wish to make provision in a certain way by a plan, or whatever it may be, and the Government writing again into primary legislation that they should make such a plan. We feel that this would be a mistake. It would go against our constitutional relationships with our partners in the education service. We have
518
found from practical experience that development plans have not always worked out as their framers intended and have had in effect a restricting influence rather than one that encourages important new developments.
I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will feel that in making these remarks I am trying to answer the points that he has raised, the concerns which I know a lot of people have raised in another place as well as outside it about what provision local authorities are going to make, but to say that we believe that the Bill, as drafted, will cause local authorities to look at their arrangements to determine the best way to carry out the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Banks: I should like to express my thanks to those who have supported this amendment. I have listened with great interest to the comments from those who did not feel able to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out at the very beginning an important fact: that this would involve a minimum of expense and that it would provide something to aim at, which was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), when she said that we need a systematic plan. It is our attitude to those two statements, that we need something to aim at and a systematic plan, on which our approach to this amendment turns.
There are those of us who feel that getting the Bill on to the statute book as an Act is the first step, but unless there are some pretty positive moves taken after that we shall not really take full advantage of it. The obligation on each local authority to produce a plan to say what they are going to do in the next five years would start the process of getting action taken to see that ordinary schools are gradually and progressively better fitted to deal with handicapped children.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, asks: "Would we know what the resources are?" Well, we should not necessarily know what the resources would be at the end of five years. The plan might be necessarily amended; other things might occur which would need further amendment. At any rate, the vehicle would have started on the road by the obligation to think at the very beginning of the enterprise exactly what one was going to do to make it viable and advance it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke about the possibility of a change of policy. I do not think that we are going to have a change of policy in this field. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was right when she said that there is a change of attitude now—a complete change of attitude. I think that the new policy line is one that is going to command general support for so far ahead as we can see. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made a very important point when he said that we were suffering from a haphazard approach in many of our welfare policies in this country and that we needed a bit more standing back and planning what we were going to do rather than just being pushed along by events.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, rightly pointed out that it is no good just having good intentions. I think that this would be something more than just having good intentions. It would be a target; it

519
would be something to aim at. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made some play out of the fact that—as I have already mentioned—a plan can become out of date. It provides a target initially and it can be amended. She pointed out that continuing development is left out. If she likes to produce an amendment at the next stage of the Bill covering that point, I am sure that we should all listen to that most sympathetically. I understand the force of some of the arguments which she put forward, but it did not seem to me that they outweighed the great advantage of plans being made throughout the country to take this Bill when it becomes an Act and carry it forward so that it really makes a change in our system. For that reason, I should like to test the feeling of the Committee.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to make just one comment. I think he said I said that there might be a change of policy with regard to the treatment of the integration of handicapped children. I was not referring to that: I was referring to the change of resources because, on the one hand, if you bring out a ten-year plan and the resources are very much less than they were before, your plan is wasted. If, by happy chance, your resources double, equally your plan is out of date.
Lord Banks: I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness. It is of course possible to have various contingency plans for differing amounts of resources, and no doubt that would be a sensible thing to do. I did think she had used the phrase "change of policy", and if I was wrong I apologise.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kissin, L.

Bacon, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barrington, V.

Mishcon, L.

Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Bishopston, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Chitnis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Seear, B.

Collison, L.

Stamp, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Stedman, B.

David, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stone, L.

Fulton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Whaddon, L.

Janner, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

520

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Loudoun, C.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Alport, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Avon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marshall of Leeeds, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newall, L.

Cathcart, E.

Northchurch, B.

Chelwood, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Digby, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Glasgow, E.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Soames, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Henley, L.

Vaizey, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Windlesham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Young: I think perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take other Business now. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Yugoslavia Agreements) Order 1981
7.9 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Yugoslavia Agreements) Order 1981 laid before the House on 2nd June 1981 be approved. The order specifies agreements between the European Economic Community, its member states and Yugoslavia as Community treaties in accordance with Section 1(3) of the 1972 European Communities Act.
This rather technical order provides for any directly applicable rights and obligations contained in the agreements to be enforceable in the United Kingdom courts. In a formal sense, we are not here to debate the terms of the agreements themselves: the scrutiny and ratification procedures provide the opportunity

521
for that. But of course, I shall be happy to respond to any points on the content of these agreements, about which I should now like to explain one or two details.
The order has already been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the committee requested an extra memorandum on the likely consequences of these agreements on our bilateral trade; a subject to which I shall revert in a few moments.
The agreements with Yugoslavia follow those concluded over the past decade or so between the Community and other Mediterranean countries. In addition to close geographical links, there are important strategic and political interests for Europe as a whole in the area. Clearly, too, many of the countries involved have close historical ties with one or more member states. Yugoslavia is a country with a special relationship with the United Kingdom in many senses. Her experiences during the last war were unique; the common cause she espoused with us has created lasting bonds of friendship.
In 1973, the Community concluded an agreement with Yugoslavia; but, apart from a minor concession on beef, there were no preferences. When this agreement came up for renewal in 1978, it was clear that Yugoslavia wanted substantial improvements despite her residual doctrinaire objection to the concept of a preferential link.
I have to inform your Lordships that negotiations were not straightforward. The Community needed to retain protection for its most sensitive industries. But we, for our part, wanted to support Yugoslavia and help ensure her economic stability during and after the fatal illness of President Tito. Our export interests are very strong. The United Kingdom's trade surplus with Yugoslavia has recently been running at the rate of over £350-worth of exports for every £100-worth of imports into this country. In addition, Yugoslavia wanted to see a balance in the geographical spread of her trade. The two agreements were finally signed on 2nd April 1980.
The major interest for Yugoslavia lies in the trade provisions. Since external trade policy is a matter of Community competence, it was not necessary to await national ratification of the agreements to implement these provisions. As my noble friend the Minister explained in answer to a written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, some weeks ago, most of them came into force on 1st July 1980 under an interim agreement.
The EEC agreement offers duty-free access for most Yugoslav industrial products. But, in the case of sensitive products, this is limited by Community-wide tariff ceilings. Imports are monitored and, when the stated import levels are reached in a particular year, the full Common Customs Tariff may be re-imposed for the rest of the year in question. In fact, Yugoslavia was subject previously to much the same system of tariff controls, but under the Community's Generalised Scheme of Preferences to which she retains access. Under the new agreements, fewer products are under restriction and the levels of preferential access permitted are generally rather higher.
Although there are tariff ceilings on textiles under the EEC agreement, the provisions of the existing
522
bilateral agreement under the auspices of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement will also continue to apply. This imposes quantitative limitations on what Yugoslavia can send to the United Kingdom. The European Coal and Steel Community agreement, the trade provisions of which cannot enter into force until all member states have ratified it, provides for similar treatment for ECSC products. In addition, Yugoslavia will be required to observe ECSC price rules.
On the agricultural side, there are certain specific concessions, notably a range of tariff concessions on processed agricultural products and, of most interest to Yugoslavia, preferences on such exotic species as morello cherries, a special Balkan variety of tobacco and slivovitz. But Yugoslavia's main interest is in baby-beef, on which I shall have more to say in a moment. In general, there are no provisions for Yugoslavia to provide preferences for Community exports. Yugoslavia's level of development, while greater than that of many of the countries with preferential links with the Community, is still relatively low. And giving the Community preferences would not have helped Yugoslavia's substantial balance of payments deficit.
The remainder of the agreement is similar to those concluded with other Mediterranean countries. The Community has made available 200 million European Units of Account to be committed in the form of loans from the European Investment Bank. Provision is made for economic and technical co-operation between the Community and Yugoslavia. There is reference to tourism and to fisheries. There are provisions against discrimination against Yugoslav nationals in the fields of social security and health care, and guarantees of equality of treatment for Yugoslavs who have already been admitted to work within the Community.
This said, Yugoslavia does have certain obligations. She must grant the Community most-favoured-nation treatment; she must inform the Community of new trade measures, and the Community can require her to discuss them at ministerial level in a Co-operation Council. She must not discriminate against Community products in the operation of her taxation system.
Finally, the Community has certainly not left itself without protection. In addition to the tariff ceilings on sensitive products, both agreements contain safeguard and anti-dumping clauses allowing for action to be taken in the event of market disruption. These provisions are not to be used lightly, and their existence should assist sensible discussions of any problems in the Co-operation Council at an early stage.
It is far too early to assess the exact effect of the agreements on trade between Yugoslavia and the Community. It is up to Yugoslav enterprises to take advantage of the opportunities offered, and the general state of demand in the Community is not at present propitious. But, in time, these opportunities should stimulate industrial development in Yugoslavia, and thus her demand for imports from the Community.
I now return, as promised, to the question of baby-beef. When the agreements were signed, Greece was not yet in the Community. After she joined, the agreements needed adaptation, and this raised the

523
question of Yugoslav baby-beef exports, a major part of which have in the past gone to Greece. The agreement, which allows for the import of 34,800 tonnes per annum from Yugoslavia, took no account of this special trade, having been negotiated before Greek accession. A substantial increase is therefore needed. The Community, despite repeated discussions in the Foreign Affairs Council, has not yet been able to agree to a mandate for negotiation with Yugoslavia, because of baby-beef's sensitivity in certain member states. Although interim arrangements have been made, the uncertainty is damaging, and Yugoslav trade with Greece is suffering badly. The United Kingdom deplores this and will continue to press for a fair and rapid solution.
The agreements are an improvement on the terms previously available to Yugoslavia. The relationship between the Community and Yugoslavia has been put on a new footing. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has been able to play a worthwhile part in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. Yugoslavia is in a special position: it is European, it is non-aligned and it lies between East and West. It is important that the Community should do what it can bearing in mind the current limits of its own resources. I therefore ask the House to approve the order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining this order. May I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we welcome the laying of this order, and that I was glad to learn that it has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? As the noble Lord said, our relationship with Yugoslavia is a unique one. To demonstrate its uniqueness, I noted that the preamble to the co-operation agreement states that the agreement is between the Community and its member states, on the one hand, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a non-aligned, European Mediterranean state and a member of the group of 77 developing countries, on the other hand. This shows the uniqueness of Yugoslavia.
We very much support the policy of establishing closer trade links between the Community and Yugoslavia, since this agreement will extend the preferential trading agreements with the Federal Republic. I was particularly pleased to note when reading the agreement—this was not an aspect of the agreement upon which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, touched—that the agreement will guarantee equality of treatment as between Yugoslav workers employed in member states and the nationals of those countries as regards working conditions and remuneration and access to social security. Although that may not have been a problem in this country, I know that it has caused considerable concern in other member states of the European Economic Community, particularly in Germany where many Yugoslavs have found employment as immigrant workers.
524
As the noble Lord said in moving this order, the co-operation agreement provides for non-agricultural products, with certain exceptions, to enter the Comminity free of import duty and quantitative restrictions. I did have some questions to ask the noble Lord regarding the levy concessions on agricultural products, and in particular I had it in mind to ask him about the young male bovine animals known as baby-beef. However, the noble Lord anticipated my question on that subject by explaining the damaging effect on trade which this possibly might have. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say whether the effect of this agreement will be that Yugoslav wine will be pouring into the EEC wine lake or whether the result of this agreement will not add to that wine lake.
In moving the order, the noble Lord said that it had become operative as from 1st July. The information sheet which I have, which admittedly is dated 2nd June, states that the agreements will become operative once they have been ratified by all member states and the necessary Council regulations have been passed. Several other member states have yet to ratify. I wonder whether the noble Lord could confirm that all other member states have in fact ratified these agreements.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government are very grateful for the welcome that has been accorded to this order by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I, too, was very interested in the subject of baby-beef when I read the order and thought that I should have to give some description of it. Therefore, I was pleased that the noble Lord did not press me to give a more technical description of male bovine animals of a certain age. I understand, though I am not too sure, that it is a question of how many teeth the beast possesses before it passes into adolescence. Baby-beef is hardly known in the United Kingdom. As I mentioned during my remarks, baby-beef does, however, have significant importance for at least two member states and, from my own knowledge, a third. Therefore the question of exports of baby-beef from Yugoslavia to Greece is of great importance to the Community and to Yugoslavia.
I have two brief answers to the noble Lord's queries. To take his last question first, I am informed that not all member states have yet ratified the agreements. Three have already done so, but the other member states have yet to take that action. I am advised that consideration of the agreements is in progress.
Turning to the noble Lord's first question as to whether Yugoslav wine will be joining the so-called wine lake, I understand that the amount of wine entering the Community from Yugoslavia is limited at the moment to 12,000 hectolitres. I could not give the House, or the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, a description of how many bottles that would be or how far it would stretch along the Benches of your Lordships' Chamber. Nevertheless, I understand that the amount of wine is limited to that quantity.
As the noble Lord and the House will know, the question of wine imports into the Community is still a very serious problem for the wine-producing member states. I do not know whether the United Kingdom is classified as a wine-producing member state. I should

525
not think that the production of wine and its export from the United Kingdom to other member states of the Community is very significant, but 12,000 hectolitres is the limit which may be imported from Yugoslavia into the Community.
We are very grateful for the welcome which has been given to the order by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, together with his comments on the Federal Socialist Republic, as I think he called it and as is stated, and for our common cause as between East and West and our wish to facilitate Community-Yugoslav trade.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.27 to 7.50 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall have a duty, after consultation with organisations of handicapped people and the parents of handicapped children, to issue guidance to local education authorities specifying (a) the matters to be covered in development plans for meeting special education needs in ordinary schools submitted under section 2(4) above, and indicating the ways in which such needs can best be met in ordinary schools, paying due regard to the variety of distinctive types of need which may exist; and (b) the factors which are to be taken into account in determining what constitutes efficient education and the efficient use of resources in subsections (3)(b) and 3(c) above.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides that in planning the development of integration in ordinary schools the local education authorities shall have advice from the Secretary of State as to how they should proceed. In the report Integrating the Disabled the following was said about advice from the centre:
"A national commitment to integration would of course mean that the activities of the various authorities concerned would have to be co-ordinated and the necessary information, guidance and encouragement provided by central Government".
And the Warnock Committee said this:
"We recommend that the Secretary of State for Education and Science should issue comprehensive guidance to local education authorities on the framing of their future arrangements for special educational provision".
This amendment provides for the guidance which these two reports felt should be given. The guidance would specify matters to be covered in development plans, indicate ways in which needs can best be met in ordinary schools, specify factors to be taken into account when determining what constitutes efficient education and what constitutes the efficient use of resources. I would hasten to say that the use of the words "development plan" does not necessarily mean a written plan, which we were discussing earlier. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I think that we could all agree—certainly the Government do—about the need to issue very comprehensive guidance to local education authorities in order, as it were, to put flesh on the legislative skeleton which we have before us. Circulars of guidance will be issued after the enactment of this Bill and consideration has already begun on the necessary scope and content of the guidance which will be required. I think that goes quite a long way towards meeting the point made in this amendment.
I will not go over again the Government's objections to development plans because the Committee has already considered that matter earlier, but I think it is important to remember that what we are dealing with in this part of the Bill is the placing of 150,000 to 200,000 children in up to 25,000 schools. The whole concept of the Bill is towards looking at the child as an individual, assessing his needs and making appropriate provision for them. We believe that it would be out of keeping with that aim, even if it were possible (which I doubt) to lay down detailed rules specifying the arrangements and facilities that should be provided before a child with special needs was admitted to one of those schools. Nor is it necessary to prescribe the factors to be taken into account in determining what constitutes efficient education and the efficient use of the resources referred to in this clause. It was not necessary to do so in the provisions about parental choice in the 1980 Education Act, and where the same words are used it is not necessary here.
In fact, in the last resort, decisions about what is best for the child with special needs, for those with whom he will be educated, and for the system, can only be taken locally in the light of detailed knowledge about the child and about local conditions. Although we can impose general requirements on LEAs to have regard to this, or to take account of that, particular feature, we cannot prescribe every detail from the centre. It is wrong that we should do so since we are dealing with local authorities who are elected and accountable bodies to whom the Education Acts have entrusted the provision of the service.
I hope with that explanation, both on the educational point and, once again, on the constitutional point and the fact, as I emphasised at the beginning of my remarks, of the importance that we, as a Government, attach to comprehensive guidance to LEAs—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made very fairly at the beginning of his remarks—the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. What she said at the beginning of her remarks certainly went some way towards meeting the point behind this amendment. I should like to make it quite clear that I agree with her that we should not try to prescribe every detail from the centre, and that certainly was not the intention behind the amendment. I should like to consider carefully the arguments which she has advanced against certain aspects of the amendment; in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): Subsequent amendments have been marshalled in-

527
correctly and I shall now take Amendment No. 19, which should read "page 2, line 36" and not as printed" page 3, line 12".
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
7.57 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("the Governors, in the case of a county or voluntary school, and of").
The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment which in fact has come from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and I am moving the amendment really in order to ask a question. They ask why the governors should be involved here because in fact they have no finances and it is the responsibility of the local education authority to exercise its functions in this way. The Bill as drafted places a responsibility on the governors of schools which they simply do not have the resources to fulfil. So as the responsibility rests on the local education authority, why are the governors put in the subsection? I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I hope that I can answer the question posed by the noble Baroness. As she will know, the respective duties of local education authorities and governors in relation to county schools is a complicated issue. It becomes even more complicated so far as voluntary schools are concerned. When we were looking at the Bill it seemed to us important to ensure that those nearest to the day-to-day running of the school should be aware of their responsibilities for meeting the special educational needs of registered pupils at that school. We therefore concluded that while overall responsibility for meeting special educational needs generally clearly rests with the LEA—a point which I think the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is making, and they do so under the duty imposed on them by Section 8 of the 1944 Act—nevertheless some specific duties could, and should, be placed on governors of maintained schools. Governing bodies with their parent-teacher representatives have, we believe, a real role in respect of their schools and it is important that this embraces pupils at the schools who have special educational needs. In imposing the duties in subsection (5) in the way we did we had it very much in mind that this was yet another way of encouraging a better awareness of the needs of a wider group of children identified by this legislation among all concerned with their education.
Perhaps I may add a further point on that. It seems to me that this strengthens the role of governing bodies in schools—something to which the Government attach importance, and I believe most members of the Committee think in principle that it is right. So we included this in order that governing bodies will be looking at the special educational needs of all pupils registered in the schools of which they are governors. That is why this is included.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for that reply. The point I was wondering about was how the governors were going to carry out that duty if they did not have the resources. What I shall do is to consult with the people who asked me to table this amendment and find out whether they wish any further action to be
528
taken, and I shall also think about whether further action should be taken. At the moment I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness withdraws it, may I add one other point. One of the things which I believe will be paramount here is the attitude of the teachers, and of course the attitude of the pupils themselves in the schools where there is integration. That is a matter to which governors could well turn their attention and could have some really helpful and positive things to say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("to use their best endeavours").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. In this clause dealing with the provision of special education it is stated quite clearly that special educational provision is to be made for pupils who have special educational need. On an earlier amendment when 1 sought to strengthen that clause I was told from more than one source that there was no need because the obligation was absolute. But then when we get down to subsection (5)(a) we are told that the duty is "to use their best endeavours" to provide for these children. That seems to me to be something of a contradiction. The phrase "use their best endeavours", is very vague. Not long ago when the noble Lord, Lord Banks, moved an amendment which included the word "reasonable", the noble Baroness said that one of the difficulties was that "reasonable" was a difficult word to quantify. I must say that I think "best endeavours" is an even more difficult phrase to quantify. I do not want to be cynical about this, because I know that many local authorities are really sincerely using their best endeavours. But I cannot understand why this phrase has been put into a clause of the Bill which is supposed to lay the duty on the local authority.
I have been a member of a local authority for many years, and so have many of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite. We all know that there are certain mandatory statutory duties that are laid upon the council and they have to be carried out. Then there is a wide range of activities on which the council can make up its own mind and use its best endeavours. I really hoped that as far as the education of these children was concerned this would have been a mandatory duty, and it seemed at the beginning of the clause as if it were. Then at the end of the clause there is slipped in this nasty little phrase about using their best endeavours.
Who is to judge the best endeavour? One might have an education authority where the councillors were very divided, and by some tiny minority some project is lost or another project passed. All sorts of compromises have often to be made in local government. I cannot think who is to judge whether the authority has used its best endeavours. If a council excused itself on these grounds by saying, "We did try", can the Minister say, "But you did not try hard enough; you used only your half best endeavours; you could do a better endeavour"? This kind of phraseology

529
seems to me confusing and unhelpful. I move this amendment because I think the use of those words weakens the Bill, and we are all very concerned that the Bill should not be weakened. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I can understand noble Lords' reaction to the use of the words" to use their best endeavours". I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was very forceful on the subject. I should like to ask her to consider the practicalities of the situation we are talking about in Clause 2. We are talking about securing education for children with special educational needs in ordinary schools. If we are referring to the duty of the governors, in the case of a county or voluntary school, or indeed of the local education authority, what we are saying is that short of sitting in on every lesson attended by every child at the school with special educational needs neither the LEA nor the governors can secure absolutely that a child's special educational needs are being met. They cannot be a kind of inspectorate. We have no wish to place duties on people that cannot realistically be met. I am sure that any duties imposed by this Bill must be dischargeable if the Bill is to meet the goals we all wish to see.
As a result of this, subsection (5)(a) as drafted takes account of these difficulties while at the same time specifically requiring LEAs in respect of nursery schools, and governors in respect of county and voluntary schools, to use their best endeavours. The wording does not permit inaction; it does not allow them simply to do nothing at all. I indicated in my final remarks on the former amendment how I see some of the kinds of problems that arise in these cases being met by the activities of governors. I hope with that explanation the Committee will agree that the Bill is properly drafted in this respect, and the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jeger: Before I decide to do that, I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister can tell me if there will be any monitoring of this requirement. Earlier in the debate there were requests that there should be some sort of follow-up monitoring of the Bill. I am genuinely anxious that this phrase should not be used by dilatory authorities. I should be influenced in my decision if the noble Baroness could tell us whether there is going to be any way of keeping an eye on the use of this phrase as regards the provision of special education.
Baroness Young: I do not know whether I can give a complete assurance to the noble Baroness, but if she looks at Clause 2 she will see in subsection (4) that there is the absolute duty on the local education authority to keep under review its arrangements. I did say, under subsection (4), that 1 thought that probably local authorities would review their arrangements at the annual budget-making time, or as appropriate if some provision became available, or on some such occasion. So there is this absolute duty on the local education authority.
I have already indicated that the DES will be keeping the statistics. I have already indicated—I think it was to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher—about dissemination of good practice, which, of course, is
530
important. Besides subsection (4) we have subsection (5) which makes it clear that it is also the duty of governors, in the case of a county of voluntary school, and the local education authority by whom the school is maintained in the case of a maintained nursery school that they should use their best endeavours to see that the children who are being educated in an ordinary school are receiving the education appropriate to their needs. What I am saying is that this subsection does not stand on its own; it is part of Clause 2. It is, as it were, a back-up provision to subsection (4).
May I fill in a little of the background. We had long discussions about whether or not this should be included; because it is an unusual provision. On reflection it seems to me right that we should involve governing bodies in this way if we believe that they have a real role to play. I am quite certain that if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, were here, he would tell us that governing bodies should have a real role to play. The wording has been put in because of the practical circumstances of the case, not in any way to absolve local authorities from their duties or to weaken their responsibilities in this regard.
Lord Banks: I cannot resist saying that it seemed to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, had scored a bullseye when she linked the reaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to the phrase "use their best endeavours" and her reaction to "could reasonably be made", a phrase which we had earlier. I am wondering whether if I had worded Amendment No. 8 to read "or with the use of their best endeavours" it would have been acceptable to the noble Baroness, or whether that is another hypothetical question.
Baroness Young: I have already answered one question like that for the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and it really is pushing his luck to ask me to answer it a second time round!
Baroness Jeger: I assure the noble Minister that we on this side shall use our best endeavours to keep an eye on the implementation of the clause. Having given the noble Baroness that assurance, and not having had a very satisfactory one from her, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
8.13 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 18, after ("Governor)") insert ("provided that the Governor so designated has practised experience of special education or of children with special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. I am sure that all of us know of the different qualities of different governing bodies and different governors and that sometimes there are better bodies than others. This amendment which adds:
"provided that the Governor so designated has practised experience of special education or of children with special educational needs",
is put in as a safeguard against those governing bodies which are not so good as other governing bodies.

531
It is very important in this case to make quite sure that if a governor has this responsibility he or she is really capable of carrying it out. I can see no possible objection to inserting this into the subsection. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I believe that the noble Baroness may have misunderstood the role of the "responsible person" as set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. The purpose of subsection 5(b) is to ensure that once either the head-teacher or a governor is informed of the special educational needs of a particular pupil, those needs are made known to all the teaching staff who may come into contact with the child. There is no reason why the person who passes this information to the teaching staff need be required to have specialised knowledge himself. His task is to tell others of the existence of the child so that they may use their professional skills to meet an individual child's special needs.
In tabling this amendment I wondered whether the noble Baroness may have had in mind a rather different recommendation of the Warnock Committee that where special classes or units were attached to an ordinary school, a member of the governing body should be specifically concerned with that class or unit. In those circumstances the Warnock Report acknowledged that the designated governor might or might not have had related experience in a special school.
I hope, however that the Committee will accept that it will never be possible to ensure that there is someone on a governing body of every county and voluntary school with personal experience of special education or, indeed, of any other particular facet of the curriculum. I think that that would be imposing something which would be impossible to achieve although a good many schools will, in fact, have someone who is so qualified. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: I should have thought that if somebody is to pass on this information it is much better done by somebody who has some experience and who knows something about the subject. Maybe we could hope that, as there are supposed to be one in five children who will have special educational needs, there might be one in whatever the number may be—12 or 20—governors who also will have some information about this. So I do not think that it is a very satisfactory answer, but I equally do not think that I should do very well if I pressed this amendment at this stage with so few people in the Committee. Therefore, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provision of special education otherwise than in schools]:
Lord Vaizey Lord Vaizey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment
532
No. 21. This is really a probing amendment more than anything else and it has to do with the question of the special educational needs of children who go into hospital. Something like 800,000 children every year go into hospital and, of those, about 20,000 stay longer than a month and an additional unknown number stay longer than a month because they are in mentally handicapped hospitals.
There is an increasing problem which the Thomas Coram Research Unit is looking into about the children who go into hospitals which do not have hospital schools and who then leave the hospital to go home. Although the local authorities of course make provision for peripatetic teaching of children who are not well enough to go back to ordinary schools, the parents may not know of the availability of that peripatetic teaching and so there is a kind of breakdown of information. I must emphasise that where there is a hospital school the problem does not arise. I myself took all my public examinations—the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate—in a hospital school, so I know whereof I speak. Of course it is not possible to arrange that in all the hospitals throughout the country—the units would necessarily be too small.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether, if we laid an obligation—let us say we imposed "shall" instead of "may" in the clause—on the local authority to provide special educational treatment outside the school, I should have covered the class of child to whom this amendment is addressed? In other words, shall I have made sure that arrangements are made between the hospital and the local authority that this particular group of young people—which I must emphasise is quite a large group—is under the constant surveillance of the responsible local authority officers? I am sure that, if my noble friend can give me some assurance along those lines, many of us, particularly the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital, which is very concerned about this group, will be very pleased and I, too, shall be very pleased. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: We are very sympathetic to this amendment. It seems that if a child has been assessed as having special educational needs that suggests that he is not totally ineducable and is not one of the very sad cases with which it is only possible to deal in special hospitals or institutions. Therefore, this child must have some education as prescribed by this Act. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about children in hospital, but of course this clause must also be linked to children who are home-bound. I am wondering whether the Minister could say something about children who are being very much assisted in their education by voluntary organisations by the sort of homes run by the Spastics Association, the British Epilepsy Association and other such bodies whose homes often cannot strictly be defined as schools. I very much hope that this clause would include any of these, what I might call, "learning places" and that once the child has been found a suitable place in which to learn, then there is an absolute duty on the local authority to see that he gets the education which has been prescribed.
Lord Digby: I was delighted to hear that this was just a probing amendment, because I really am worried about the wording. One might think that the local authority officials did not have an understanding of the whole situation. Surely this is particularly a case where you cannot lay down rules from the Government or by statute. This is a case where the local authority "may" do it. Of course, in a number of cases they will do so, but every situation is different. I cannot see the advantage of putting "shall" in the place of "may".
Baroness Young: The main point to which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is drawing attention is very important and I am sure that every Member of the Committee would agree with it. It is the need for good communications between the social services committee, the education committee and, of course, the hospital service. It was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, drew particular attention on Second Reading and it is one on which we would all agree. However, as he will know, with the single exception of the Inner London Education Authority, social services and education departments form part of the same local authority. The actual effect, therefore, of this amendment would be to require a local authority, which includes a local education authority, to inform the local education authority of the existence of a child with special educational needs if that child happens to be in hospital or, indeed, elsewhere. It is very difficult to say that by writing such a provision into legislation, it would have real meaning except, of course, in Inner London.
I recognise the point that the noble Lord has made about children in hospital and the point which the noble Baroness made about children possibly being educated by voluntary societies, because, of course, Clause 3 is concerned with the education of children otherwise than in schools, but I believe that there are better ways of tackling the problems of improved communications, both with the social service and with the education departments within the local authority. This is one area which we cannot cover in legislation but which must be covered in guidance. I should like to give the Committee an assurance that one of the points we shall stress is the need for co-operation between local authority services, and this will come in post-legislative guidance, to which I have already referred. I believe that this would be a much more appropriate way of dealing with what I recognise is something about which many people are concerned: the problem of communications is always an important one and is often difficult to arrange, but it is not one of which we are unmindful, and we shall be referring to it in guidance rather than in primary legislation. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaizey: I am grateful, first to your Lordships' Committee for this useful and interesting mini-debate, and secondly to my noble friend for the care and consideration with which she has answered the points that we have made. I venture to differ from my noble friend, Lord Digby, about this. Perhaps I could give a personal example. I left hospital in the August of one year and did not go to an ordinary school until the
534
following January. As I recollect, during that time there was absolutely no communication whatever between my parents and the education authority, which in those days was the London County Council and which I suppose was one of the great educational authorities of the country, and there was no communication whatever between the hospital—which in those days was owned by the London County Council—and the London County Council in the role of an education authority. To believe that because they are the same authority there is communication between different branches is, quite honestly, in the realm of optimism.
So there is a serious problem of communication, and an increasing one. Take, for instance, the child who is knocked off his bike, who spends a month in hospital, who is partially restored and who then goes home. The family wait and the school does nothing; the parents do nothing, and the matter can drag on. In fact, all local authorities have perfectly good arrangements. When the child is in the orthopaedic ward of the general hospital they can send a peripatetic teacher there and also one to the home. So communication is a serious matter. My noble friend has given me a very full and fair assurance about guidance. I am perfectly sure that she is correct and that it is much better to have this in notes for guidance than in primary legislation. But I hope that the notes for guidance are jolly tough and are followed up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert ("A parent shall be informed of their right of appeal against a decision made under this section, and the provisions of Section 8 of this Act shall apply").
The noble Baroness said: It would seem to me to be fair that if a child is said not to be appropriate for education in a school, the parents should have the right to appeal against that decision, just as they can appeal against a placement in any particular school. It is a very straightforward matter. This amendment simply emphasises the rights of parents, which I hope a good many amendments that we have tabled to this Bill will try to do. It could be that the parents feel very strongly that it is the wrong decision, and I think that they should have the opportunity to go to the appeal committee, just as happens in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: In speaking to this amendment, I think it might be helpful if I went over the powers that are given to local education authorities in this clause and which may be exercised in respect of any child with special educational needs, whether or not that child has the protection of a statement under Clause 7 of the Bill. Most usually these powers will be used to provide education to children who are in hospital or at home during a period of convalescence, or at home waiting a placement in a special school. Occasionally they will also be used to provide home tuition for a child who may suffer from school phobia.
First, let me consider the position of a child for whom a statement is being maintained under Clause 7 of the Bill. In those circumstances, the special provision

535
to be made for that child and where it will be arranged will be set out in the statement. In that case the parents will have had the opportunity to comment on the educational arrangements and, if dissatisfied, to take his case to a local appeal committee and ultimately to the Secretary of State. If at a later date the local education authority proposed to alter the statement, then the parent must be notified, as is set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, and the whole appellate procedure set out in the Bill reopened for the parent. That is if the statement is altered. Therefore, we believe that the proposed amendment is unnecessary in respect of children with statements.
Turning now to the child with special educational needs but without a serious learning difficulty requiring the making of a statement, that child would be educated in an ordinary school. The only reason why a local education authority may wish to exercise its power under Clause 3 in respect of such a child would be in circumstances where the child has to receive hospital treatment, perhaps for an appendicitis, a complicated fracture or some such ailment, which could affect any child irrespective of whether or not that child has special educational needs.
There is, perhaps, a third possibility where a local education authority may need these powers; that is in cases where a child with special educational needs is in an ordinary school but is expelled from it, and the local education authority wishes to arrange home tuition pending a full-scale assessment of the child's needs and the making of a statement.
Those are the only circumstances that I can envisage where this clause would come into effect, and in none of them would it be appropriate for parents to have rights of appeal as envisaged by the amendment. Parents will either have such rights if a child is subject to the statement or, alternatively, will not need such rights if for medical purposes the child has to be in hospital for only a short period of time. With that explanation—and I have given rather a full one because it is an important point and I wanted to clarify it to the Committee—I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for giving that very full reply. I should like to study it carefully and will not make up my mind at this moment whether finally to withdraw it, because that may not be the right thing to do. I shall look at what she has said and decide whether or not to return to the matter on Report. But just for now I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("(2) If home tuition is recommended the local education authority shall provide at least 15 hours a week at home, or at a prescribed Centre.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23. The noble Lord, Lord Digby, will be glad to hear that this is a probing amendment. We have discussed this amendment from a different point of
536
view when we discussed the last two amendments. I speak as an ex-director of social services. May I tell your Lordships what, in fact, happens. I shall now refer practically exclusively to emotionally-disturbed and maladjusted children. The child is excluded from school, and in many cases up and down the country that child receives a peripatetic teacher, sometimes, I regret to say, for one morning a week; so that the parents are left to deal with the emotionally disturbed and maladjusted child for the rest of the time. What very often happens in fact is that during that time the child gets into trouble, is brought before the juvenile court and is, perhaps, committed to care. Alternatively, if the child is very emotionally disturbed and difficult, he is admitted to hospital.
We talked earlier about the efficient use of resources. Taking into account all departments of the local authority and not just the education department, the cost if the child is committed to care is something like £110 a week. If the child is sent to a community home for education, the cost is something like £150 to £180 a week, or even more. Because the child has only received tuition one morning or one hour a week, he gets into trouble and has to be committed to care. This is not a hypothetical case—this is reality. I therefore maintain that this is not an efficient use of resources in the local authority overall. It may be an efficient use of resources in respect only of the education department, but not if the matter rebounds on to the social services, or on to the health service if the child is admitted to a mental hospital.
I have been very specific in recommending that there shall be at least 50 hours a week tuition at home "or at a prescribed centre". By "centre" I was thinking in terms of day centres which we very often use or, alternatively, a hospital. I realise that this amendment is probably better for use in regulation rather than in primary legislation, but I felt bound to bring this amendment before your Lordships' Committee because it has to be admitted that we in this country have many children in custodial care under various social service department Acts. I believe one of the reasons for this—although perhaps not a very big one—is that when children are excluded from school they are under no control at all and the parents have a very difficult time.
Baroness Jeger: I have great sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say. I have spoken to some of the teachers involved in home teaching. Some of them find the prospect of spending 15 hours a week with the same child too much for them and too much for the child. It really means spending three hours a day with the child, and some of these children are so disturbed and difficult that they certainly cannot benefit from three consecutive hours of one-to-one teaching. It might do these children more good if someone took them out for a game in the park. I feel that there has to be some flexibility so far as individual cases are concerned. Two hours tuition a day would come to ten hours tuition a week, but as the noble Baroness herself has said, it is difficult to put these things into the statute. I know that this goes against most of what I have been saying on

537
every other amendment but it seems to me that this particularly sensitive issue of deciding by statute for how long one brings a peripatetic teacher into the home does not have a place in this Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: May I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that I absolutely agree with her—but I just wanted to make the point that if a child does not get that extra help it is going to leave the home in some other way; through another channel. I included in the amendment the words "or at a prescribed centre" and if the child is going to be too difficult for a peripatetic teacher to deal with for three hours on end—and I have every sympathy with the teacher—one would hope that the local authority would have alternatives, either within the school or outside the school for these particularly difficult children.
Baroness Young: I am glad that my noble friend Lady Faithfull said in her opening remarks that this was a probing amendment. I share her concern while acknowledging the difficult circumstances in which local authorities are sometimes placed. I do not think we can tackle the deficiencies in the level of provision in this area by means of legislation. Home tuition is provided to cover a vast range of different circumstances, and it is often these circumstances which ultimately govern how much or how little provision there will be; this was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was making. For example, if a child has just left hospital and is convalescing at home before returning to school, the amount of tuition that he can receive will be governed by his state of health. Similarly, if a child is awaiting placement in a special school, there might be a limit to the amount of tuition which the child is either able or willing to receive. We see this very much as an area where the local education authority must, for good reasons, be allowed flexibility over the kind of provision to be made.
I should like to clarify one point. If a child is the subject of a statement under Clause 7 of the Bill, and the statement specifies home tuition, then the parent may challenge the amount of provision made if the parent considers it insufficient to meet the child's special educational needs. I think this is a helpful provision. I hope that with this explanation the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. If the noble Baroness has some particular cases in mind, I shall always be ready to look at them— if she or any other members of the Committee will let me have details. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I am almost grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her reply. I am sure that psychiatrists, educational psychologists and social workers will be very grateful to hear that it may be possible for a parent to challenge the health education being given while the child is at home. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Assessment of special educational needs]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 not moved.]
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Where a local education authority make an assessment of a child under section 5(4) the parent shall have the right to see all the professional reports and other evidence on which the assessment was made by the local education authority and the local education authority shall have a duty to inform him in writing of this right.").
The noble Baroness said: There are a number of amendments on this subject of the right of parents to have full access to reports in relation to the education of their children. There are amendments not only in my name and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady David—Amendments Nos. 38, 77 and 82—but also Amendment No. 42, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and Amendment No. 73 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. Therefore, perhaps it would be appropriate to have a general discussion on the whole question, which I believe is a vital one.
The White Paper suggested that the view was widely held that it would be wrong to expose fully to parents the professional reports lying behind the record, which is now called the statement. If this view is widely held, then certainly it is only widely held by the professionals and not by the parents themselves. The notes which the Department of Education and Science have kindly supplied explain that indeed the Bill does not afford parents the right to disclosure of professional reports by the local education authority, and that disclosure will remain a matter of professional discretion. If the proposals for secret reports are enacted by regulations, many local authority education personnel—not all of them professionals—will enjoy unrestricted access to confidential reports on handicapped children while the parents, who are the people most directly and intimately concerned with the children's welfare, will be refused access. I believe this would be an unjustifiable infringement of parents' rights. Furthermore, they could not possibly fulfil their duty to ensure that their children receive the education suitable to any special needs they may have.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 82 in particular seek to give parents full access to information and to control the circulation of such information. This is a terribly important issue because, first, if records and reports are kept secret from parents it makes it very difficult for them to decide whether or not to appeal against a decision by a local education authority and, secondly, it makes it very difficult for them to appeal successfully.
At second Reading, both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I mentioned the United States Education of All Handicapped Children Act 1975, under which parents have the right to examine all records relating to their children's education. I must stress that this excludes private notes which are made solely for the benefit of the writer as an aide mémoire.
The American experience is that access to reports produces better reports. Professionals are not infallible, as some parents of handicapped children know to their cost. One of the main objections from parents and, indeed, from the voluntary organisations is that

539
at present reports are often factually inaccurate and highly judgmental. It is always the case that legislation is unnecessary where good practice exists. For example, in some areas there is already close cooperation and good practice on referral of handicapped children from the area health authorities to the education authorities. But there is a need to protect parents where such good practice is not in existence.
It was remarkable when we had a meeting about this Bill last week that, although the organisations concerned with the different types of handicap differed quite considerably in their views on the degree of integration which was to be desired, they were unanimous in their opinion that parents should have access to all information on their children, and the Advisory Centre for Education also was strongly in favour of this. The argument often presented is that reports may contain sensitive information—for example, that a child is dying, or is dangerously ill. But I think that this demonstrates a paternalistic and over-protective approach. Parents who do not want to know are unlikely to want and ask to see the record, and those who have suspicions and request access to records should not be denied the opportunity of seeing them.
Surely there can be nothing worse for a parent than to learn in the first place that his child is handicapped. The parent who requests information is going to be the type of parent who has lived day and night with all the problems that handicap entails. He knows only too well the heartache that it brings. But if the information that he requests, when he gets it, brings further distress, he still has the right to know it, and the advantages that full access to the information would bring are vital for him to achieve what is best for his handicapped child.
There is quite a bit to be said in favour of early access to information—for example, when the assessment has been made. Amendment No. 29, which I am moving now to Clause 5, seeks to ensure this, as does Amendment No. 73 to Schedule 1 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. The right of full access to information would thus also apply to parents on whose children the LEA had decided not to maintain a statement. I think they too have the right to know what the reports contain, and they will also need to know if they are going to decide whether to appeal to the Secretary of State against such a decision under Clause 5(5).
Our Amendment No. 38 to Clause 7, if accepted, would ensure that parents were made aware of the right to see reports before a statement is made, when the LEA propose to make a statement on the child. I think Amendment No. 42 to Clause 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would do this only after the statement is made, which would in fact mean that parents would have to make representations to the LEA before they knew what the information was. Access to all information at an early stage is, I think, likely to mean fewer appeals, as otherwise parents may appeal out of ignorance about the evidence on which the assessment, or later the statement, was made. Fewer appeals would of course mean the saving of resources.
I must apologise for having spoken at such length, but I really feel that it is a vital issue. Is it not time
540
that we gave parents of handicapped children the same rights as American parents have enjoyed for the past six years with, it appears, very satisfactory results? I beg to move.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Renton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has pointed out, her Amendment No. 29 is really an alternative to Amendment No. 38 and my Amendment No. 42. She suggested that it might be a good thing if we discussed the amendments together because we all have the same motive, and it is just a question of how our purpose is best achieved. May I say that having heard the noble Baroness I have a very open mind. It may well be that she is right in saying that if parents are to be given this information they should be given it at the earlier stage while the assessment is being made instead of having to wait, which they would have to do if my amendment were accepted, until after the statement has been made, and therefore the further information would merely form the basis of a right of appeal.
Bearing that in mind, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that she accepts in principle that parents should have, in general at any rate, a right of access to the information; to all the information. This matter was discussed at tremendous length in another place, and God forbid that one should attempt even to summarise the arguments that were used there. I think they really speak for themselves. All that I would tell the Committee is that I know from my own experience as a parent, and that of other parents too, that it is bad enough to have the shock of realising that your child is mentally handicapped and will be so for life, but not to be told why this is a permanent state of affairs is really very hard indeed to bear on top of the initial shock.
There was a consensus reached between all concerned in another place on broadly these lines: something ought to be written into the Bill to give the parents the right to all relevant information, but that—and this I have to concede, and I do not think that the noble Baroness would quite agree with me about this—there are exceptional cases in which it could do more harm than good for the parents to be told the whole of the truth, including the whole of the medical truth. Alas! there are some cases—and these cases do not refer so much to mental handicap; they relate to children who are psychologically disturbed, which is quite a different situation—in which the home circumstances, the inability of the parents to get on with each other, the failure of one of the two parents to act as a parent should, are factors which have led to a psychological disturbance on the part of the child and which have caused the child to become not only emotionally disturbed but educationally backward as a result. One has to concede, therefore, that there are these exceptional cases.
I was discussing this the other day with an experienced medical man, a psychiatrist, and discussed the issue which arises on these amendments. He said to me—and naturally he shall be nameless—"Well, you can write what you like into the Bill, but if you make it too stringent you will be defeating your own object, because medical men will just refuse to put on record everything that has a bearing on some of the cases".

541
This would happen in a small minority of the cases, no doubt, but it is a difficulty.
However, the way to overcome the difficulty—I think it is the only way, and it is a hard way—is for my noble friend, with the skilled help of the parliamentary draftsman (while I often have reasons to suggest improvements in the drafting of legislation I would say that the draftsman on this Bill has done extremely well in sometimes very difficult circumstances, and although he has had to make the Bill dovetail with the whole of the Education Act 1944 and the various amendments to it, he has skilfully avoided, to a remarkable extent, legislation by reference) to find a form of words which will give a general right of access to parents to all information, including medical information, but with a let-out for the very small number of exceptional cases. Then I hope we should all be satisfied. But as to the place where this provision should be written in, on reflection I prefer the place suggested by the noble Baroness, with all the careful thought she has given to this as to so many other parts of the Bill, to the place which I have suggested.
Lord Davies of Leek: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will permit me to say that, with great skill, he has shot the horse on which he was galloping to freedom. He adduced a skilful argument, but I must ask him a very simple question: who is to decide the exception? That is all one has to ask. A parent is a parent, the person who bore the pain of bringing the child into the world, and we are all aware of parents who have brought up deformed children and have learnt to love them. I think it is ridiculous to say that parents cannot face the facts. It is much better for us to have freedom of information for parents than for some official, medic, lawyer or whomever you will to have the authority to withhold information. There is no need for a long debate on this issue. The question which cannot be answered fairly and squarely is who is to decide the exception, and in the last analysis parents should be permitted to know.
Lord Winstanley: My mind is certainly not as open as that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this point. I and my noble friends on these Benches would support him entirely in Amendment No. 42, but I think we should all wish to go further and support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in Amendment No. 29, which goes further and probably fulfils the need more fully. I say that not only on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches but I say it carefully and advisedly as a professional, as one of those professionals who has from time to time had the responsibility of making reports of the kind about which we are speaking. I think the sensitivity of professionals in these matters and the sanctity of professional reports are just a little misplaced. In my view, if a person—a doctor, child psychiatrist or teacher—does not have the ability to couch the true facts in terms acceptable to the parents, that man or woman does not deserve the name "professional".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said much about the parliamentary draftsman. I suggest that if some of these reports were written by the parliamentary draftsman there would be no danger in the parents
542
seeing them at all because they would not have the slightest idea what they meant. I fully accept Lord Renton's point that there are certain dangers and risks in knowledge and openness. That is a factor of which we must be aware in terms of the admitted dangers of knowledge. But whatever may be the dangers of knowledge, to parents or any others, they are nothing compared with the dangers of ignorance.
I really believe that the parents in these cases genuinely have a right to all the information. I also believe it is perfectly possible for the professionals concerned, even in the difficult and sensitive cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred, to draft truthful, accurate and comprehensive reports in terms which would not be upsetting or damaging to the parents; and with those words I warmly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
The Earl of Radnor: I too support the amendment, because I cannot conceive of a situation where anyone is more important in a child's life than the parents, be they professional or whatever. I also follow many noble Lords in believing that the parents should know everything about their children. Speaking as a layman, I am thinking of what one might call the true medical aspect if one's child is ill in a medical sense—inside the body perhaps rather than inside the mind—when one would want to know every detail in order to make a parental decision as to what should be done. This hiding away of information behind a professionalism which I otherwise admire very much indeed would, in this instance, be absolutely wrong.
While listening to noble Lords speaking on this question I jotted down three points which we should bear in mind. First, if only for the good of the child, the parents should know everything. I quite sec the risks which my noble friend Lord Renton envisages, but it is the good of the child we are considering, first and foremost. Secondly, obviously in more than 99 per cent. of cases it will be for the peace of mind of the parents, but that is something which one should not discount too readily. Thirdly, what nobody so far has mentioned is the fact that it will prevent a tremendous amount of mistrust growing up between the local education authorities, or whatever other authorities are involved, and parents, and I have come across a lot of that sort of mistrust in the past. It is a pity because that mistrust grows and becomes destructive to the main aim which, to go back to the beginning of my remarks, is to do the best for the child. Therefore, let us at the appropriate stage—and I should not like to say what stage that should be—have a full revealing of the papers.
Baroness Young: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has moved an amendment on one of the most important aspects of this whole area of the Bill; it is one amendment, but there are half a dozen down dealing with various aspects of the major issue of confidentiality. I wish to make it clear at the start that this is a matter which has exercised the mind of the Government more than almost any other as a general principle in the Bill, and I believe it exercised the mind of the former Administration when they were considering the Education Act 1976. It is one on

543
which it is extremely difficult to make quite sure that one has reached absolutely the right conclusions.
I have listened carefully to all that has been said, I have re-read carefully what was said about this in another place at all stages of the Bill, and of course what was said in this House on Second Reading, and I shall try to answer some of the points that have been made and make what I hope the Committee will consider to be a constructive proposal at the end of my remarks.
I was grateful for what my noble friend Lord Renton said, and I am sure the parliamentary draftsman will be grateful for his helpful comments on the drafting of the Bill. That, incidentally, has not been an easy task, involving, as it were, translating the Warnock Report into legislation. My noble friend indicated a number of areas where it is very difficult to be quite sure that parents in all circumstances should have full and open access to all professional reports.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, speaking as a professional, said he believed it was possible to draft accurate reports which need not be damaging to the parents. Well, I am quite certain that the noble Lord can do that. However, if I may say so to him—and I do not speak as a doctor—as he will know, it is not an ability that is shared by the whole of his profession. Some professionals make the point that sometimes it is very difficult to state what is wrong in language that is readily understood by a parent, and if it is not readily understood, it might not necessarily be very helpful. Of course, talking to the professional involved would be much more helpful than reading the report. I feel that this is a matter of practice, rather than of principle.
My noble friend Lord Radnor made what I thought was a very important point; namely, that in the whole of this question we should be putting the good of the child first. One factor that must emerge from all the consideration is that the good of the child will ultimately be best served by professional people being able to report accurately one to another what they think is wrong with the child. On an amendment of my noble friend Lord Vaizey we debated the whole problem of communications, and if the point involved is important, communications become much worse if it is not put down on paper but is conveyed simply by word of mouth.
Turning to this series of amendments—we are dealing here with a principle—I would refer to the view of Mrs. Warnock and her committee. The committee stated:
"Whether or not parents are shown the actual reports on their children must be a matter for the judgment of the professional concerned. Some professionals may be ready to show parents their actual reports on children, but for others the knowledge that parents would be able to see their reports leads to the production of less detailed reports. The overriding consideration should always be whether or not it is in the child's best interests that the parents see the report on him".
That is the view of the Warnock Committee, and here I believe that in a sense we have the nub of the problem: what is to be in the child's best interests.
In regard to this matter we have in the Bill as an overriding principle sought to involve the parents as much as possible. If the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken on this question look
544
at the Bill, they will see that it provides for consultation with parents throughout the assessment procedures. A parent has the right to ask for his child to be assessed when the child is under the age of two. When the child is assessed the parent has the right to be present at the examination by the multi-disciplinary team, the right to comment on the statement when it is in draft and when it is made, and the right to be brought in at every stage of the procedure.
It is most important that during the whole of the assessment professionals concerned should involve the parents so that they can understand the nature of their child's problems. Even if professional reports were made available to parents, many parents might not understand them because of the technical language in which they would be couched, and I believe that that would be a particular danger with some medical or psychiatric reports.
Under the provisions of the Bill parents will receive a copy of the LEA's statement of their child's special educational needs, and the Secretary of State must lay down the form of the statement. This is all set out in Schedule 1. I can assure the Committee that the statement will be framed in such a away as to contain all the information about a child's special educational needs that the parent must know. On reflection, it is our view that where parents need to know about matters which can be, and I think frequently are, highly painful or technical, it is much better if the information is communicated to them in a discussion or interview, rather than through a written report.
When the matter was considered in another place and an identical amendment was being discussed, a suggestion was put forward of a possible role for a named person to relay sensitive information to the parents. However, having considered the suggestion and discussed it at length, we do not feel that a named person is necessarily the person best fitted to fulfil this particular role. But we want to pursue the matter further. We are very anxious to follow up every possibility of improving the communication of information to the parent, but without endangering the frankness of professional reports through giving parents a blanket right of access to them.
In another place we undertook to look at the possibility of introducing in your Lordships' Chamber an amendment which would give parents who were dissatisfied with the contents of the statement a right to discuss it with the professional concerned. We stand by that undertaking, and it is to me a matter of regret that I do not have before the Committee an amendment which would I hope go some distance towards meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken, and which certainly would go towards meeting the undertaking that we gave in another place. The only reason why I do not have such an amendment at this stage is that there have been problems of drafting, but I can give an assurance to the Committee that I shall come forward with an amendment on those lines at Report stage.
I hope that that will meet an anxiety that I understand. I hope that it will make it much more possible for parents to discuss with the professionals their child's statement and the information that lay behind it. I think that from the point of view of the parent

545
that is better than agreeing to an amendment which would give them an absolute right to see the confidential reports. I think that that course would be acceptable to the professionals because it is in line with the best practice, and I hope that it will meet what I recognise are real anxieties.
I have considered this matter at great length and perhaps I may state in the following terms how I think it might work out. I have perhaps been fortunate in my life in that there have been very few occasions on which I have ever had to convey very bad news to someone, but on the rare occasions when I have had to do it I have had the experience, which I think others have had, of finding that the person has taken the news surprisingly well, in a sense. There has not been a very great reaction, and I think that that has been because the person has had a sense of shock on hearing the news. In a way nature comes to the person's rescue and he rests while recovering from the shock. After a while, when he has recovered, the questions come very rapidly—How did this happen? What is it all about?
Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who faces this, I see a mother or a father with their handicapped child terribly concerned and asking, under the age of two, for an assessment; or perhaps the child has a terrible accident and something happens to it, and at the age of five it needs to be assessed. It must be a terrible shock to the parent on learning of this, and really what the parent wants is not just a statement. The parent wants the opportunity to discuss the matter with someone who understands the problem and knows what it is about.
In this legislation, what we have tried to do is to provide the maximum number of opportunities for the parents to be involved in the assessment of their child, and what I hope the amendment that we shall bring forward at Report stage will do is this. Ultimately, if at the end of this process the parent still has not the confidence of the authority, or whatever it may be, our amendment will give the parent the opportunity to talk to one of the professionals who has made the assessment and go through all the reasons why the decision has been taken and ask all the questions with which they are bound to be concerned.
I hope that, with those sort of assurances, the noble Baroness will see that we are hoping to go some way to meet her amendment, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment that she has put down. At any rate, I hope she will reflect very seriously on what I have said; and if there is more discussion that I could have between now and another stage with any noble Lords, particularly on this point, I should be very glad to do so.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: There is, I think, one key question which one can ask the noble Baroness at the moment—even though one realises that the amendment is not yet drafted, nevertheless a great deal of thought must have gone into it—and it is this: If the parents are not satisfied with the information they get, and if they use the procedure which will be produced by an amendment and go and talk to the professionals, then, having talked to the professionals and having gone through what I might call the process which it may be softens the blow or explains in human
546
language some of the very difficult personal problems that are involved, will they have a right to see the written report? I think this is vital, because that will meet most of the objections that have been made—that when one sees the written report in that kind of way it can be misunderstood, or it can be a frightful shock. I should have thought that, having been given that opportunity, in the last resort—after all the interviews and after everything they are given in that way—they ought to have the right to see the report. I think this is a key question.
Baroness David: I should very much like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said. We are grateful, of course, that the Minister is trying to meet us in some way, but without seeing the amendment the situation is very difficult indeed. This assessment will be made by a multi- professional team. Presumably the wretched parent will not be faced by the whole team—I think that would be very alarming—but, if faced by one of them, which will it be? Do we assume that the whole team has agreed on what is going to be done? I think there are a lot of difficult questions about this. Even fairly sophisticated people, as most of us, I would say, probably are, always forget to ask half the questions that we want to ask when we go to see our doctors. I certainly do, although I do not have to go very often, I am glad to say. But one does suffer, when meeting these sort of people, in trying to remember all the things one intended to ask.
So I am not altogether happy that this is going to be a satisfactory solution. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, having met the professional and had a discussion, the parent is not satisfied, and if access to the reports is then available, I think that would be a different matter. But I do not think that I am going to be satisfied with the amendment which is likely to come up, although, of course, it is hard to say for certain until it has been seen.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend tell us whether her proposed amendment would be an amendment to Clause 5 or an amendment to Clause 7? It is, I think, rather important for us to have some idea of that. I must say that I started off, as I said earlier, with the assumption that really we could not expect all the information to be provided, or as much information as I hoped to get, until the statement had been made; and then, along with the good advice I had from the man at MENCAP who has been advising me, I drafted Amendment No. 42 as an amendment to Clause 7.
It would seem to follow from what my noble friend said that her proposed amendment will be an amendment to Clause 7 and will therefore be something which would follow the statement. But it might be that a good deal of trouble would be saved, and that a less stringent amendment might be accepted, if it came earlier; namely, as an amendment to Clause 5. I was wondering whether my noble friend could give us an idea which of the two possibilities she has in mind.
Baroness Young: I can answer my noble friend's question straight away. The answer is that the amendment would be to Clause 7. It would follow the making of a statement. It would be yet another

547
procedure and, therefore, would follow logically on Clause 7. I take Lady David's point. It is a matter of great regret that I have not got this amendment but it is very difficult to draft. I do not say that because it is something we have just thought about. We have been considering it for a long period of time. I was particularly anxious to have it for this Committee stage. It will come. It is very difficult to take for granted an amendment you have not seen. I take that point.
I do not want to mislead the Committee or to mislead either the noble Baroness, Lady David, or the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, over what I am talking about. He asked a specific question. I thought that in my remarks in answer to the amendment of the noble Baroness I had made it clear that this does not give an absolute blanket right to see the professional report. I have said that before and I repeat it. What we are saying is that parents would have a right to discuss the statement when made. After all, they would not be discussing it with somebody they have not seen before. The statement will be made by a multi-disciplinary team that will probably include someone from the educational world, probably a psychologist, probably a doctor, or a combination of perhaps two out of three, whoever is regarded as appropriate, or another specialist for a particular handicap.
I take Lady David's point that it would be an alarming experience suddenly to be summoned before one of these people and to have to think of the questions. I would hope that the parents would automatically see the statement which has been made about their child; they will have the opportunity to reflect on the statement; and this will arise if they are dissatisfied with what the statement says the educational provision should be for their child. The amendment would give them the opportunity to discuss the statement further with one of the people who are involved. I see no reason for thinking that this need be an alarming experience, in the sense that the parents will have been present when the assessment was made, will have seen the statement in draft and will have commented on it; and will have met the people before. They will have a chance to think about the statement before requesting the opportunity to see someone who was involved in drawing it up. They will have time to think about questions that they want to ask.
I would hope that that would be a helpful way of going very thoroughly into the matter. At the end of the day, these matters will rest on a degree of confidence. That must inevitably be so. We cannot legislate for that confidence but we can try to legislate for a process that will build up that confidence. That is why I have some hopes that my amendment will go some way, quite a long way, to meeting the concerns of parents.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. She had thought hard about it and I appreciate that; but she has not convinced me that her proposed amendment will go all the way to what I want. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he thinks that the amendment that I moved is in the right place, and then I was given great confidence and enthusiasm by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who, talking as a doctor, gave his support. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, got the
548
crucial point—would the parents have the right to see the report after they had had this interview? It is plain from the Minister's reply that there is not an absolute blanket right and, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, the decision as to what would be revealed would, in the end, lie with the profession. I think that noble Lords have convinced me that we have the amendment in the right place. I think it is high time that we did what has been done in the United States for the last six years; so, regretfully, I must press the amendment.
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Alport, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bacon, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Birk, B.

Peart, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Radnor, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Renwick, L.

Collison, L.

Stedman, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ingleby, V. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Inglewood, L.

Auckland, L.

Killearn, L.

Avon, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Newall, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pender, L.

Crathorne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Digby, L.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trenchard, V.

Glasgow, E.

Vaizey, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Vickers, B.

Gridley, L.

Vivian, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B,

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No.30 not moved.]
9.28 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations the factors that are to be taken into account by a local education authority in deciding that they are not required to determine the special educational provision that should be made for a child.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 31, which is to Clause 5, and to Amendment No. 36, which is to Clause 7, at the same time, because one asks that the Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations the factors to be taken into account by a local education authority in deciding that they are not required to determine the special educational provision to be made for a child. The other one asks that:
"The Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations the factors that are to be taken into account by a local education authority in deciding that they should determine the special educational provision that should be made for a child."
So one goes one way and one goes the other, but I do think it will be perfectly possible to speak to these together.
If a statement is made on a child under the provisions of Clause 7, it will decide that the child can be educated in an ordinary school only if the efficiency criteria in Clause 2(3) are met. If no statement is made, the child can be educated in an ordinary school without restrictions of these efficiency criteria, but merely with those of Section 6 of the Education Act 1980. Whether or not a statement is made on a child is therefore crucially important for the future of the child, and the factors that decide this are therefore also crucially important. They are so critically important that they cannot be left to the discretion of individual education authorities. I know that local authorities may think this is interference and that they can cope perfectly well themselves, but I think we need to take precautions against the authorities which are not quite so farsighted and not so good.
The Secretary of State, in Schedule 1, Part 1, 1( l), is going by regulations to make provision as to the advice which a local authority are to seek in making assessments, so I do not see why we cannot have these extra regulations made by the Secretary of State about these two very important aspects. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to speak very much in favour of this amendment, because it is crucially important and this ought to be done by regulations.
Baroness Young: As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, Amendment No. 31 requires the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the factors that are to be taken into account by a local education authority in deciding that they are not required to determine the special educational provision that should be made for a child, while Amendment No. 36 does this the other way round and the Secretary of State would be required to make regulations stating the factors that are to be taken into account in deciding whether to assess and maintain statements for individual children.
On Amendment No. 31, it may be helpful if I explain that there are certain general principles upon which
550
LEAs will base their decision as to whether they are required to determine the provision to be made for a child. It is implicit in the Bill that certain children will have special educational needs of an order to require the intervention of the LEA—in determining their provision and in monitoring their progress—in order that their particular interests are protected. Conversely, LEAs will decide that they are not required to determine the special educational provision for a child where, after assessment, they judge that his needs can be met in the ordinary school, within the resources normally available to it, and without the formal intervention of the LEA.
Thus LEAs' decisions will be based upon the nature and extent of the provision they make as a matter of course in their ordinary schools for children with special educational needs. These are factors which, particularly at the fringes and in respect of resources required for children with mild disabilities, will vary from authority to authority. Each LEA will have its own set of broad criteria, based on local circumstances, provisions and practices, and it is not possible to prescribe such factors on a national basis. I believe that the general principles are, however, sufficient to enable LEAs to reach their decisions. I hope that the Committee will understand this.
Turning now to Amendment No. 36, again, the provision will depend on a number of factors apart from the policies of the local education authority. For example, the geography of the area and the distribution of population—whether it is a rural or urban area—may determine the extent to which the authority can make special educational provision in ordinary schools; or whether they can maintain special schools of their own, or have to use special schools outside their area because they do not have enough children with special needs to make it practicable to provide for them efficiently in their own schools. It follows that at the margins between deciding whether or not to make a statement, individual authorities will come to different decisions depending on the facilities that are available in their own area.
The main factor in deciding whether to make a statement, however, must be the needs of the child. As I have indicated, the whole tenor of this Bill is to look at the child as an individual, and to avoid categorising and labelling. Authorities will no longer be required to assign children to one of the statutory categories prescribed by regulation. They will no longer be thinking about 10 categories, but about the different needs of their children.
When the first regulations were made under the 1944 Act, an attempt was made to prescribe the teaching methods appropriate to the various categories of handicap. It did not work, and was very soon abandoned. I believe that it would be equally impracticable to try to lay down in regulations the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to make a statement about each one of many thousands of children. I do, however, accept that guidance will be needed. This is clearly another of the subjects that we shall have to cover in the advice which we issue to local education authorities. However, I think that this would be much better dealt with by advice in a circular and not by regulations.
I hope that my reply will explain the thinking behind

551
this part of the Bill and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness David: The noble Baroness seems to assume that the authorities will have to have some criteria to go on and that their decisions will depend upon a number of factors. She mentioned the geography, the distribution of populution, and so on. I should have thought that it would be possible to prescribe these by regulations.
I am not altogether satisfied with the noble Baroness's answer. I still think that guidance in a circular will not be quite enough to guide those authorities which are not the good authorities. Therefore I shall look very carefully at what the noble Baroness has said and will possibly come back to this point at Report if I am still not satisfied. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
9.38 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("and the parent may appeal to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I see no reason why a parent should have the right of appeal under subsection (5) but not under subsection (8). When a local education authority has decided that it is not required to determine the special educational provision, the parent can appeal. If, however, the local education authority decides not to assess the special educational needs of the child concerned, the parent cannot appeal. It seems to me to be totally illogical that the two subsections should not be treated in the same way. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: This amendment is, I think, based on a misunderstanding. Its effect would be that if a local education authority, after serving notice on a parent, decided not to proceed with an assessment the parent would have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. If in fact a local education authority decided not to proceed with an assessment, this would normally be because it had been persuaded by the representations of the parents. In that situation it is unrealistic to have a right of appeal for the parent, because the parent would not have wanted the assessment in the first instance. In the rare cases where a local authority decides for some other reason to leave off the assessment, the parents have the right to ask for an assessment under Clause 9. In those circumstances, an appeal to the Secretary of State would be unnecessary. So the point which the noble Baroness is making has been met, either in this part of the Bill or under Clause 9.
Baroness David: I see that possibly the decision not to assess might be because of the representations that the parent had made. So far as Clause 9 is concerned, there is not the absolute right to assessment unless we carry one of our future amendments, so I think I shall leave this for now and see what happens
552
to our amendment to Clause 9, which would make a difference. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Assessment of special education needs of children under the age of two]:
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 22, after ("authority") insert ("or family doctor").
The noble Baroness said: I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 35. Amendment No. 34 may seem an otiose amendment. It deals in Clause 6 with a situation where children under two years of age are involved and it puts a duty on the local education authority to make special provision for children under two. Our amendment seeks to add to the local education authority's opinion, the opinion of the family doctor. I know that legislatively I may be using the wrong phrase and that we should call these marvellous people "general practitioners", but I think "family doctor" is a friendlier term, and anyhow it fits into the context of the Bill better. The Minister will be glad to know that this a probing amendment, because I hope we may have some information on how this clause will work. I referred to it on Second Reading and I am still worried about it because it is a new departure, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to tell us of plans which are being made to bring this into effect.
We know that under the reorganisation of the National Health Service the school health service and the community services and all the health services were supposed to be brought within the area of the health authority and we hoped that this reorganisation would result in a comprehensive service in which the school health service would be integrated with the other child health services, hospitals, specialist services and general practitioner services. Of this Mrs. Warnock said, on page 278, "This goal has not been achieved". I know it has not been achieved, from personal experience. I know too many family doctors who have been called out in the middle of the night or at weekends to see children who were getting some attention from either the school doctor or the hospital doctor, and often there is a real breakdown in communication.
I am trying to visualise the situation as I know it at ground level. Here is a child under two about which a local education authority has to make a decision. I ask the Minister, how will the local education authority know about these babies? It really will be a new departure if family doctors, who may be well trained, although not perfectly, in communication with community health doctors and school doctors, now find that they have to write a letter to the education authority—or do they have to write a letter to the health authority for the health authority to send on to the education authority? I am very concerned about how the links in this chain are to be made effective.
It is often the family doctor who has the most contact with the children and the parents, and in the context of this Bill we have been trying to think about parents and

553
children very closely together. In my view it is especially important that he should be closely involved, and I know that such is not always the case. The Court Committee went into this in some detail and reported in 1976, so it is not a new question. It may not be through legislation that we are going to get the right co-ordination, but we surely must make it clear to those we are expecting to do this work how they are to do it and in which direction it is to work.
I was very concerned at another observation in the Warnock Report, at page 295, on the question of relations between professionals:
"The inadequate communication of information, both between and within different professions and between professionals and parents, emerged very clearly from the report of the research project on services for parents of handicapped children under five which was undertaken at the University College of Swansea"
We are talking about a completely new situation, and I welcome it. I think if we can get disabled children under five, children with any sort of difficulty, brought quickly within the help of other services, that makes all the difference to their start in life.
I know that there are some specialist hospitals which can fit a tiny hearing aid into the ear of a baby a few days old, as soon as the difficulty is discovered, so that the child never is bereft of noise and sound. Things like that which medical science is working on can do marvels for these children. Is the hospital doctor to tell the education authority? Is the family doctor to tell somebody else? I ask these questions in concern and in all seriousness. I put this amendment down really to give the Minister an opportunity to explain, not only to me but to some of my doctor friends who are worried and puzzled about the intentions of this Bill as it affects their work. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is moving a probing amendment really to get an explanation of this clause. As the Committee knows, this is a new departure in education, to give a power to local education authorities to make provision for children under the age of two. What the noble Baroness is trying to achieve in her amendment is, I think, an explanation as to how this will work. If the family doctor suggests that a child under five has special educational needs—and I think she is quite right that this will probably be how a parent will first become aware of this—he should be able to alert the local education authority so that they can assess the need. This is in fact already possible under the Bill. It does not require the amendment for the family doctor to do so.
Baroness Jeger: I am anxious to get this right. Is the family doctor to get in direct touch with the education authority and not go through the local area health authority?
Baroness Young: No. What would happen would be that the family doctor would tell the parents of his suspicion that the child has some special needs and the parents would trigger off the mechanism for assessment; they could ask for an assessment. The family doctor—or it might be the health authority; it might come through a health clinic—would say that the child had a special need. The noble Baroness suggested,
554
for example, that the child is deaf and therefore will have a special educational need. In those circumstances it might be quite appropriate for the parents to ask for an assessment and statement because the child will almost certainly have a special educational need. Indeed, the local education authority could so something to help the child although the child is under two.
It could well be that the need might be something quite different about which the local education authority could not do anything with such a young baby, and therefore it could not make a statement. However, the purpose of this clause would be to enable, where appropriate, the mechanism for there to be started an assessment of the child. The local education authority would have the right to determine whether or not the child did become the subject of assessment; they would have the right to determine whether they regarded it to be appropriate. So in effect, under this clause, local education authorities have powers to make a statement of a child's special needs and to maintain the statement as they regard it appropriate. Many local education authorities in fact already make provision for handicapped children under two, particularly for those with a hearing impairment, and they do that by way of peripatetic teaching.
However, it is not always possible for local education authorities to make provision for very young babies, many of whom will only have emerging educational needs and who will be at too early a stage in their development for the local education authority to take any meaningful action. It is, therefore, right that local education authorities have the powers to help where they can. Clause 6 allows them to exercise this flexibility in judging whether to complete and maintain a statement for these very young children, but it does so with the consent of the parents. I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation of the clause to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Faithfull: I should just like to ask a question. I think that in all the areas where I have worked, the community physician is the link between the hospital, the doctors and the local authority. We have found that this has worked because there is this particular link and each of us has always been informed.
Baroness Jeger: I should just like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that that is what is supposed to happen. I am talking from some rather harsher practical experience. I appreciate what the Minister has said. I still think there will be a great deal of communication needed with the medical profession and with the area health authorities, many of whom are quite unclear about the impact of the Bill on their work, their status and duties. However, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.52 p.m.
Baroness David: I should like to say a few words on the Question, That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill,

555
because this is a very important clause, and it is quite new for the education authority to have dealings with children under two. All the evidence to the Special Standing Committee on the Bill stressed the importance of the early identification of handicap and appropriate provision. Warnock said in Chapter 5.28:
"For all children with physical or sensory disabilities or showing signs of learning or behaviour difficulties, early education is the key to their individual development and the prevention or mitigation of later disturbances".
It is very satisfactory that the Government have accepted this argument as indicated by their acceptance of new Clause 10 of the Bill which, of course, deals with the way in which the information gets to the local education authority about the needs of the under-twos. That was an amendment that was moved by members of the All-Party Disablement Group. I think that they are to be congratulated on it because parents do get the information.
The Government are bringing in their own amendment to Clause 6 giving the parents of children under two an absolute right to an assessment. That is something about which we can all be extremely pleased. This should help and go a long way to ensure the proper co-ordination between the statutory authorities which was mentioned on Second Reading and which obviously we are all very anxious should be as good as it possibly can be. Indeed, when we come to a later amendment about the advisory committee, I shall be stressing that point again. But a loophole remains which may result in handicapped children not getting the vital early education that they require. This is a situation where parents do not ask for an assessment, either through benign or deliberate neglect or through ignorance of the appropriate process, and where, although the child has been referred to it, the local education authority does not undertake an assessment. This is why we should prefer to have "shall" rather than "may".
556
I think that my noble friend Lady Jeger was very sensible to withdraw her amendment at this stage, but it is a matter to which we may have to return at a later stage because this is the one weakness in a clause which otherwise we are extremely pleased to see.
Baroness Young: I thank the noble Baroness very much. I am glad she appreciates that we have made major amendments to meet points that have been raised by the All-Party Disablement Group in another place. As she said, Clause 10 has been written in as a result of that and of course Clause 6 has been extensively amended, I am sure for the better. The Government have gladly accepted these amendments.
Perhaps I may just reiterate the argument, which is really the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raised on Amendment No. 34. The reason that we have written in "may" instead of "shall" is because there will be cases where a parent will request an assessment but regrettably the child is so handicapped that it is not suitable to make a statement for that child under the age of two. That is why it is not an absolute duty; because there is no point in conferring a duty which in that case, very sadly, would not have a purpose. That is why it is drafted as it is. But the noble Baroness may like to look at this on the record and consider it. At any rate, I am glad that she thinks that we have managed to improve the Bill, as I believe we have, as a result of accepting amendments in another place.
Baroness David: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for this explanation. I shall, of course, look at what has been said.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Statement of child's special educational needs]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
9.56 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 2, after ("section") insert ("or section 6").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move, very shortly, Amendment No. 37. I was a little puzzled to find that in this clause, where the statement of a child with special education needs is referred to, the under-two's, about whom we have been talking under Clause 6, are not included. The purpose of this amendment is only to suggest that where the local education authority is maintaining a statement under this clause in respect of a child, we should include Clause 6 as well, so that the under-two's are brought into Clause 7. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Here again, I think that there is a misunderstanding. The purpose of this amendment would place local education authorities under a duty to make special educational provision included in any statement they made in respect of a child aged under two. The argument that I advanced on the preceding amendment—namely, that local education authorities must have a flexibility to decide whether or not this is appropriate—applies in this case as well.
I think that there has been a misunderstanding about what an authority can effectively do with all handicapped children. Authorities will have the right to make an assessment if they believe this to be appropriate, and to make a statement, but not if they regard it as inappropriate. The same argument applies in Amendment No. 37 as applied in Amendment No. 35.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the noble Baroness and I shall read tomorrow—when I am rather more wide awake—what she has said. With that reservation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("15") and insert ("29").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 39. When a parent has been served with a copy of a proposed statement, under subsection (3) of this clause he has only 15 days in which to make representations to the local authority about the content of that proposed statement. I submit that 15 days is really not long enough. We all know how long the post can take, or the arrival of the statement could coincide with the parent's having 'flu or being on holiday. I see that Amendment No. 40 in the name of the Earl of Radnor gives the parents one more day than the amendment now before your Lordships' Committee, so perhaps the
558
noble Earl would like to come in on this discussion. In its comments on the Bill the BMA also said that the time allowed was far too short.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to support this amendment. I do not know why I picked on 30 days. I now realise that 29 days is one day more than four weeks. I should hate to use any strong language when speaking to this and will only say that in these circumstances 15 days is almost derisory. To start with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has said, the post is very inadequate and one can never be sure at what point something is served upon a person when it is sent by post. A period of 15 days is also less than the average holiday, and the person to whom such a notice might be sent might be away and would return to find it on his doormat.
When this opportunity to make representations about a statement is given, there is a strong possibility that the parents concerned will want to seek an outside opinion. With educational difficulties, this may concern an educationalist, a psychologist and a medical person. I feel that it would be absolutely impossible to make appointments and get three such people together, in combination or one after another, and then to collate their answers and make a sensible presentation within the time allowed. I am very strongly in support of this amendment. People to whom I have talked have said that 29 days is far too short a period, but at least 29 days are better than 15; 15 days makes matters quite impossible.
Baroness Young: Throughout the Bill we have tried to strike a balance between what is a reasonable time in which parents can place information before local education authorities and what becomes an unreasonable length of time when one considers that the child might not be receiving the education that it ought to be receiving during the period of the various procedures which have to take place. I hope that we have struck the right balance. One has to remember that before the point is reached where there is a draft statement the parent will have been involved throughout the assessment procedures, and the contents of the statement will not come to him as something completely new which he has not had an opportunity to think about before. What we are really talking about here is the actual period during which the parent has a chance to read the draft statement and make any further representations that he may want to make. No local authority will take action on the statement when the parent has said that he is seeking a second opinion on some element of the assessment. And at the end of the day, the parent still has the right to take his case to the local appeal committee.
Conversely, I believe there is a danger that if the period of time is too long, it would sadly give the parent an opportunity to use the delay to prevent the provision of appropriate education to meet the child's needs taking place at all. We must be quite realistic and recognise that although a major theme of the Bill is the involvement of the parents—for we do accept that most parents are concerned and caring parents—unfortunately there will always be the occasional parent who may not want to have what the local

559
authority sees as being the best provision and who may wish to delay this for some reason or another. Therefore, we have tried to strike a balance between what is reasonable from the point of view of the parent and what is important from the point of view of the child.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for her reply. Could she say whether, when a copy is served on you, it is when it is delivered or when it is posted?
Baroness Young: I am not sure that I could give an off-the-cuff answer to that. What might be helpful would be if I wrote to the noble Baroness on that point. I think we are getting into a great deal of detail and I cannot answer that question. Before I do answer it, I hope that she will consider the whole long period of assessment which precedes these dates. These are not just beyond it; it precedes them probably by a matter of weeks, so that by the time the parents receive the draft statement they have had full consultations, they are aware of what is going on, and they have an opportunity to comment. What is important is that if the parents are really dissatisfied they can go to appeal. One would want to avoid doing that because it is far better that there should be discussion, and if the parents should want a second opinion they can ask for it. I think that in those circumstances this is reasonable. But on the particular point I think I had better write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: There has clearly been a great deal of anxiety on the part of a vast number of people about this 15-day period. I wonder whether the Minister would consider a compromise of 21 days if she could not accept 29? If you are going to wait to go to appeal, that is going to take a great deal longer than an extra couple of weeks. I hope that she would pay attention to the anxiety that has been expressed by, I think, all the different societies and by a great many people in this House, both at Second Reading and in Committee today.
Baroness Young: Yes, I will consider this point, and I will certainly consider it before the next stage of the Bill. I should not like to give a promise that I can meet it, because there is a real point on the other side that one must not let too much time elapse. I think it would be unreasonable not to look at it, and I will certainly give that assurance.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am delighted, because the noble Baroness, Lady David, took the words out of my mouth. I was going to suggest that the Minister offered to compromise and come down to 21 days. I am not nit-picking when I ask whether "serve" means delivered or posted, because if the post takes seven days it is half the period of 15 days, whereas with 21 days it would give us a little leeway. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look into the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
10.9 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert ("and provide a copy of the statement if made. They shall also inform the parent in writing of their right of appeal under the provisions of section 8 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: This seeks to put right something that I am bold enough to say might perhaps be a mistake in the Bill. It asks that a copy of the statement should be made available and that the authority should also inform the parents in writing of their right of appeal under the provisions of Clause 8 of this Bill. It seems odd that at present there is no duty to provide a copy of the statement but only the proposed statement, and no duty to inform parents of their right of appeal at this stage. I should very much like to know the reason for this because it seems to me extremely odd. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I should explain that while it is not specifically set out in the Bill that parents will be given a copy of the statement, once made, under Clause 7, and informed of their right of appeal under Clause 8, it is implicit in these provisions that those steps must take place. Parents will under Clause 7(3) see a copy of the proposed statement and be notified in writing of the LEA's decision in the light of any representations they may make. They will thus be aware of the final contents of the statement, and I am sure the LEA would find it appropriate to signify their decision by making a copy of the statement available to the parents. Whatever practise LEAs adopt, parents will be in no doubt about the exact contents of a child's statement.
Under Clause 8 the LEA must make arrangements for enabling the parent of a child for whom they maintain a statement under Clause 7 to appeal, and therefore it would be very odd if, in notifying parents of their decision to make a statement, the LEA did not ensure that they were specifically informed of their right of appeal. However, I am prepared to look at the amendment in principle—I could not accept it because it is technically faulty—and in view of the fact that there might appear to be some doubt about the matter, I shall be happy to bring forward an amendment, having looked at the matter, on Report if I can find one that would be suitable.
Baroness David: I am all smiles at that reply. That is the first bit of give we have had today, so I thank the Minister very much indeed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Appeals against statements]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
10.12 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) uphold the appeal").
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that we must start on what is one of the major areas in the Bill at this late hour.
Lord Denham: Oh!
Baroness David: If, by that, the Government Chief Whip thinks I have not been fast, he is very much mistaken. I have spoken as briefly as I possibly could and I do not think I have used two words when one would do. I have done my very best to make progress with the Bill, so it was unfair of the noble Lord to make such a remark.
Lord Denham: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene to apologise; it was an involuntary exclamation.
Baroness David: As I was saying, I am sorry that we have reached this major part of the Bill at this hour because it is a matter about which people feel very strongly and needs a major debate, so I shall not hurry over this aspect. I shall be speaking to a number of amendments at the same time, including Manuscript Amendment No. 44A, to which the Chairman may wish to make reference.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Airedale): There is a Manuscript Amendment No. 44A standing in the name of the noble Baroness which reads as follows:
"Page 7, line 20, leave out subsection (5)".
But the Question before the Committee is that Amendment No. 44 be agreed to.
Baroness David: In speaking to No. 44, I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to the following: Manuscript Amendments No. 44A, 45 and 46 and I shall make reference to Amendment No. 85 to Schedule 3. These all relate to the subject of appeals. Taken together, they would make a decision of the appeals committee binding on the LEA, in line with Section 7(5) of the Education Act 1980, but would at the same time retain the right of parents of children with special educational needs to appeal to the Secretary of State. It would mean a little bit of positive discrimination for those children with special educational needs, and it is a bit of positive discrimination which I should like to get into the Bill.
The amendment to Schedule 3 gives the appeals committee, when considering cases of special educational need, the power to co-opt on to the committee people with appropriate expertise, if there is not already such a person on the committee; or indeed the appeals committee could in the first place be constituted so as to have on it a person with the necessary knowledge. I think perhaps I should make an apology here because I am fairly sure that the amendment to Schedule 3 is not perfectly drafted, and indeed it might have been better as an amendment to Clause 8(2). But no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will put me right about where it should be and how it should be worded.
562
When similar amendments were moved in Committee in the other place the Government would not accept them, for the following reasons. First, the matters that the appeals committee would be considering in relation to children with special educational needs were different from those relating to ordinary children. In the case of the 1980 Act the appeals committee would be judging a question of choice between two schools, either of which could broadly provide an education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child because of the course followed, the type of discipline, the question of single sex or not, and other such questions. Indeed, whether the school should be single sex or mixed might be the only difference. But for a child to be the subject of a statement, the important consideration would be to ensure that he is placed somewhere with suitable special educational provision available to him; and that is a specific responsibility of the local education authority under Clause 7(2) of the Bill.
The second point was that members of the appeals committee might not have the expertise to judge the type of issues involved in deciding on special educational provision. The third reason was that parents would be present at consultations during all stages of assessment, and it was expected that cases going to the appeals committee would be rare. The Government felt that they had struck the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of parents and those of the LEA, in particular since parents were given the additional right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I feel that the Government are mistaken on several counts. First, there is here another example of discrimination against handicapped children and their parents. Secondly, the function of the appeals committee must be stated. It is to act like a tribunal, to weigh up and assess all the evidence. If the appeals committee operates properly, it should have access to all the reports on which the assessment and statements have been made; and if my amendment to Schedule 3 is accepted, if the appeals committee felt that it needed further expertise and advice, it would have the power to co-opt appropriate persons, or to have them on the committee in the first place.
It might be added that if the local authority has a reasonable case, it ought to be able to put it to the appeals committee whether or not the appeals committee is expert; and we hope that the members of the appeals committee will be sensible people who will be able to take in the details of a case. The local authority ought to be able to put the case in a form that the appeals committee can understand. If the LEA does not have the skill to put its case in a form that laymen can understand, perhaps it ought not to be accepted. Furthermore, how many experts on special education will the LEA committee have? The decision will be remitted to the committee if the Bill goes through as it is. I feel it is important to retain the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, because the Government are correct in saying that the implication of the decision is far greater for a child with special educational needs than for a child in an ordinary school. It is important to retain that extra safeguard.
I feel very strongly about this question. It is enormously important that these children should be treated in exactly the same way. The parents have every right

563
to expect that, and if the entire arrangements have gone well, it should be possible to explain the decision to them in such a way that they would accept that it was right. I feel that here there should be a last right to the same kind of treatment as is given to children who do not have statements. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to say a very few words in support of the amendment. This is an important question. I believe that many organisations concerned with disabled people consider it wrong that the appeals committees are given only advisory powers. I would back up what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said; namely, that we must also leave the right of appeal to the Secretary of State as an extra safeguard.
Baroness Young: As the noble Baroness has said, this is a matter which was discussed at very considerable length in another place, and it is a matter to which we have given a great deal of thought—the whole question of the appeal procedures, and whether the appeal procedures can be precisely the same as they are for other children under the 1980 Education Act. I will not go over the arguments, which the noble Baroness summarised, that were used in another place, because I think this would not be necessary at this late hour; but I might perhaps take her through some of the thinking of the Government on this matter and the kind of problems that arose when we were considering drafting the legislation.
One of the suggestions that was made—because I think the noble Baroness will accept, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, that the decisions that the appeal committee will be considering will not be precisely the same as they will be for other children, because quite specifically we are now talking about children with statements—was that one option open to us was to have special experts joining the appeal committee in order to make a decision about these cases. But, of course, the disadvantage of that particular procedure is the one that the noble Baroness has identified in what we have now, in that it discriminates against (or perhaps one might say in favour of, whichever way one looks at it) children with statements. At any rate, it is not the same procedure.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has just said, what we have done is to say that the decision of the appeal committee will not be binding, but because it is not binding the parent has the alternative to go beyond the appeal committee direct to the Secretary of State. This is, in a sense, positive discrimination, because this is a right which, as it were, ordinary parents with ordinary children will not have under the other appeal procedure. It is therefore very difficult to produce a system which will be precisely the same.
What we have tried to do is a fulfilment, I may say, of an assurance which I gave to the Committee on the 1980 Education Bill, when we were discussing this point, that when we came to legislate for handicapped children we would make the provisions as nearly similar as possible to those we had for ordinary children under the 1980 Act. That is why the Bill has been drawn in this way. I think it is fair. We have the extra provision of a further right of appeal to the Secretary
564
of State; and what I think is very important in this case, as indeed in other cases, is that the right to go to appeal is a last resort and not a first resort. I hope particularly in this case it will be seen as a last resort, because the very lengthy procedures leading up to the statement, with the full consultation with parents, should make an appeal less likely.
I am afraid I cannot accept this series of amendments. We do not think it would be appropriate in these cases to allow the appeal committee to uphold the parents' appeal. The manuscript amendment is obviously a consequential one upon that, because clearly a subsection (5) would become necessary were Amendment No. 44 to be carried. We therefore think that we have the balance right in these particular, very difficult cases. As I say, I hope the appeal committee procedure will be used very sparingly, and in these cases it will be used only after the fullest consultation with the parents at all other stages of the procedures.
Baroness David: I am afraid I am not convinced by the Minister's reply. Let us have a look at the composition of the appeal committee. Under the 1980 Act it can be made up of seven, five or three people. I hope it would never have more than five, because that would seem to me quite enough for parents to have to face when there are also bound to be one or two officers in the room. But suppose you make up your appeal committee of seven people. You can certainly then have a choice according to the cases they are going to have to deal with. You could afford to have one or two people with real expertise in this matter, I should have thought, and therefore they could be capable of coming to a decision, with that decision being as binding as in the case of children with no statement. The Minister says they have this right of going to the Secretary of State, but I wonder in how many cases the Secretary of State changes a decision. The Secretary of State is bound to go to the local authority for the information that it works on. It sounds all right, but I wonder how much of a bonus it is at the end of the day. I do not think there will be any point in dividing the Committee at this hour of night when a great many people have gone home; but I am not satisfied about this. I shall read every word that has been written and I shall come back probably with similar, if not the same, amendments at Report stage. For the moment I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Manuscript Amendment No. 44A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Requests for assessments]:
10.28 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("unless it is in their opinion unreasonable").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47 and to speak to Amendment No. 48. Both are concerned with strengthening the position of parents

565
in relation to the local authority when parents seek assessments of their children. In subsection (1), the words,
"unless it is in their opinion unreasonable",
make it virtually impossible for the parents to get their child assessed if the local authority are unwilling to do so. Parents are often the first people to realise that their child has a learning difficulty. In a bad local authority area some parents have difficulty in getting from the local education authority the help that they know their child needs. In future, a bad local authority might make life difficult for these parents by refusing to assess their children. Parents who are worried and who believe their child has a learning difficulty should be guaranteed a first assessment for their child. Local authorities should not be allowed to escape this by using the excuse that they think such an assessment would be unreasonable. It could be argued that they are in no position to judge whether this is reasonable or not until after the assessment is made.
In subsection (2), the words,
"unless they are satisfied that an assessment would be inappropriate",
allow the local education authority to do virtually as they please, and parents are thus made powerless in arguing against a local education authority that has refused their request for a reassessment. Six months is a long time in the life of a developing child. As this subsection stands at present, they may have to wait for six months, only to be told that their request has been turned down. It is not stated that any specific reason must be given. I should like to ask the Minister a question on another point. Can she clarify what a review of a statement will entail? This is in Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 5. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like briefly to support this amendment simply on the count that the clause seems to give something with one hand and to take it away with the other. The right of asking for an assessment, as far as I can see, does not directly exist at all. It is a semblance. I am sure that my noble friend will say that the authorities are reasonable people and that it will not work like that. I am sure that at most times she will be right; but I believe that it is wrong that this phrase at the end of each clause should be there which takes away this right to request an assessment. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I should like to draw attention to the fact again that when the noble Lord, Lord Banks, used the word "reasonable" in an amendment he was told that it was inappropriate because people could not quantify "reasonable", so now I have to ask the Minister how she can quantify "unreasonable"? This seems to be leaving the door very wide open to subjective judgments however much they may be made in good faith. What is one man's reason is another man's nonsense. I strongly support the amendment. If we can just finish the evening on a happy note of agreement in this connection, we shall not have done a bad day's work.
Baroness Young: I am tempted to say that I do not feel that I have been unreasonable today. The Govern
566
ment have certainly tried to meet the major concerns that have been expressed to us either in this Committee or in another place.
The duty on the local education authority in Clause 9 is subject to safeguards. The amendment would remove the words,
"unless it is in their opinion unreasonable",
which qualify the LEA's duty to carry out an assessment of a child who is not subject to a statement. The other amendment would remove the words,
"unless they are satisfied that an assessment would be inappropriate",
which apply to a request for a reassessment.
Subsection (1) of Clause 9 is concerned with requests by parents for assessment of children for whom no statement is maintained. As it stands, it refers both to a first such request and to any subsequent request. I am sure that we would all acknowledge that, because of their close and continuous contact with that child, parents are often the first to notice emerging problems. This is a point which the All-Party Disablement Group made in their evidence to the committee in another place. If we consider the case of a parent who seeks for the first time an assessment for his child and the child is not already known to the LEA and their professional advisers, it is very difficult to envisage circumstances where the LEA could judge that request unreasonable. In this situation, where there is no existing specialist information about the child, there could be no grounds upon which the LEA would reasonably refuse to comply with that request. They would be in breach of their duty under this subsection and under Clause 4 if they were, in ignorance of the child's needs, to turn the parent away.
The position is different where a child is known to the LEA and where his needs have been previously assessed but not judged to be of an order to require the LEA to make a statement for him. In such a case, depending on how long it had been since the previous assessment, and whether there was any evidence of a change in circumstances, a local education authority might quite properly decide that the request for another assessment was unreasonable.
We realise that children's needs may change over time, if their condition deteriorates, or a child may suffer an illness or accident. Parents are anxious about these changes, and we would expect LEAs to pay heed to those anxieties and comply with a request for assessment where there was any cause to suspect that a child's needs might have changed. But we must allow LEAs some discretion to make a considered decision about the wise use of resources in the case of unduly frequent requests for assessment—for example, where a recent assessment has taken place but no serious difficulties have been revealed. What is considered unduly frequent might well vary depending on the age and stage of development of the child; but, again, decisions would rest upon whether there was any cause for doubt about the child's potential or developing needs.
In Clause 9(2) the parental request for assessment will be in respect of a child who is the subject of a statement but similar considerations will apply. We would normally expect LEAs to comply with a parental request for assessment if a reasonable time

567
had elapsed since the last assessment, but we must allow LEAs discretion to refuse such a request where a more appropriate course of action is indicated. It may be that consultation with the child's school and review of the provision will be sufficient to relieve parental anxieties, or that an appointment for parent and child with the educational psychologist who previously examined the child can be arranged in order to sort out particular worries. Perhaps the parent's request for assessment is a cry for help, indicating increasing strain upon the family as the child grows older, and perhaps a need for social work support. I hope I have indicated our belief that LEAs should be allowed some discretion in these matters.
At the end of her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked me a question about Schedule 1. Perhaps I may say that a review of the statement under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 would basically consist of checking the progress of the child and deciding whether the provision being made for the child was still appropriate to his needs. If the indications were that all was well, the review might be made in a report from the school to the LEA. If, however, there seemed to be a need for a deeper review, the LEA would look at the adequacy of provision or, if it seemed necessary, the assessment of needs. They could, if it seemed necessary, arrange for a new assessment and a revision of the statement.
If I may just return to the main principle of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, I hope that she will accept that some discretion on the part of the local education authority is appropriate and right, and that she will withdraw her amendment, therefore.
Baroness David: It seems to me that yet again the balance is being put against the parent. This has happened all through the Bill and in amendment after amendment we have tried to get the balance slightly the other way. I should have thought that in this case it was reasonable to ask for,
"unless it is in their opinion unreasonable".
to be deleted.
The Minister accepts that it is often parents who discover handicaps in their children, and it was put down by Warnock that even when parents express anxieties and suspicions about their child's development, these are too often disregarded by professionals. I should have thought that the danger of the vexatious parent was really very, very small, compared with the number of disappointments and perhaps the number of wrong decisions which might be made and the children who might be missed because of the assessment not being made.
Of course the same goes for Clause 9(2). I would ask the Minister to consider giving way. We had thought of putting down an amendment to reduce six months to three—it has been reduced from twelve, but six months is a long time in the development of a child. They move very fast when they are small, and changes can happen very rapidly; so I would have thought this was something where really the Government might have been a little kinder and switched towards the parents, as they have not done really in anything at all today. We have hardly had any movement whatsoever on this Bill.
Baroness Young: I really cannot accept that statement. We have debated this principle as to whether or not parents would have an absolute right to demand an assessment of their child when in Clause 6 it was a question of children under the age of two. The noble Baroness herself will know that this is the first time in law that we have given the power to education authorities to make educational provision for children under the age of two and a right for parents to request an assessment and, if the authority think it suitable, to make a statement and to make educational provision for such a child under the age of two. To say that in doing this we are tilting the Bill against the parents seems to me to be unfair, because here we are giving the parent a new right and we are conferring a new power on local authorities by way of their provision. Again, we are making it possible in Clause 9 for parents who wish the authority to make an assessment of their child's educational needs to have the opportunity for this to be done. We have qualified it only because, as the noble Baroness has said, there will inevitably—I regret to say—be some vexatious parents and it would be quite unsuitable to put a duty on a local education authority to make a statement simply because a parent said so.
In most cases I have no doubt that the local education authority will make a statement, because a parent will be aware that there is something that is amiss. But it may not in all cases; therefore we believe that it would not be right to confer an absolute duty in the Bill at this point. I should much regret it if the Committee felt that anything that we have put into this Bill, or anything that I have said today, could be taken as not conferring new rights on parents, because one of the principles behind this Bill has been parental involvement, and I believe that Clause 9 makes that clear.
Baroness Jeger: May I intervene for a moment? I noticed with interest that the noble Baroness used the word "vexatious" in regard to requests from some parents on rare occasions. Maybe she could look again at the use of the word "unreasonable" in the clause, because that seems to me to be a point of difference over which we ought to be able to meet one another. I do not think it is at all wrong for parents in this situation to be unreasonable, or to seem unreasonable, because the stresses and anxieties can often make parents, and the children themselves, seem to behave unreasonably to those who have the administration and the bureaucracy to deal with. I have never thought that being unreasonable was a sin. It often happens in this House and it is not held against us. So I am wondering whether, in spite of the praise that has been given, the noble Baroness could look again at this wording and see whether there is some way in which she could meet our anxieties.
Baroness Young: I have not the slightest doubt that if a parent requests the local education authority for an assessment, and there is evidence that the child has learning difficulties or has some disability, the authority will make that assessment and, if it is appropriate, make a statement on it. That is not being unreasonable where there is a clear case. I am quite certain that the noble Baroness can think of examples—indeed, we all can—of cases where a parent, perhaps from over-

569
anxiety, might ask for an assessment, when it is quite clear, because the child will be at school, that there is no evidence that the child has a learning difficulty. In such cases, therefore, the request to make a statement becomes an unreasonable one. All that we are saying in this Bill is that the local education authority must have discretion to determine in these cases. I do not doubt that if there is a real case the need will be met, but I think it would be wrong to make it an absolute duty in this clause.
Lord Renwick: I hesitate to start on this subject at this late hour, but my noble friend the Minister has made a point about parents' rights. I feel that I must support this amendment, as I supported Amendment No. 29 on confidentiality, not purely on the grounds of parents' rights, but purely on the grounds that there seems to me some hesitation by my noble friend in making local education authorities totally accountable for the service that they provide for these children—and handicapped children at that. I have not heard the word "accountability" mentioned before this evening—I may have missed it—but I feel that these are two very important amendments which we are now speaking to, as indeed was Amendment No. 29, and I hope that the Minister will give this due consideration.
Baroness Young: If I may just answer the point of my noble friend Lord Renwick, the local education authority has a duty under the Education Acts to provide for the education of all the children under its authority. There will be no question about what I might describe as ordinary children going to an ordinary school. What we are talking about here is a duty to make a statement, because a parent has requested it. All I am saying is that although the authority will have a duty to provide an education for it, it may not necessarily have an absolute duty to make an assessment of its needs because it may not believe that it has a special educational need. There is therefore a difference between that duty to provide an assessment and an absolute duty to provide for its education.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): The noble Baroness the Minister has not really satisfied me. There is quite a lot of support for this amendment but I will take it away and have a look at it. Too much power is in the hands of the local authority. I am wondering whether or not a little less could be struck out so that the local education authority would not be the judge. Perhaps the words "in their opinion" and "they are satisfied that" could be struck out. However, I will think about it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Denham: The general feeling of the Committee seems to be that this may be an appropriate time to stop. However, I am a little disappointed with the progress we have made today. This is a very important Bill about which I know many noble Lords feel very strongly indeed. I have no cause for complaint with the progress since about eight o'clock onwards, but the whole of the afternoon was spent upon discussing only 14 amendments. Originally we had hoped to get this Bill through its Committee stage in one day. We then came to the conclusion that it would take a little longer. It happens very often in this House that possibly too much consideration is given to certain amendments during the afternoon and that possibly too little consideration is given to later amendments. This is something which we might consider. When we come to the second half of this Bill, I hope we can consider it a little more expeditiously and possibly a little more evenly.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: We entirely understand the feelings of the Chief Whip. Of course it is his job to get the business through. However, he must also understand the very deep feelings that there are about this particular subject. When he said that we spent a long time on the first 14 amendments this afternoon I think he must have forgotten that we had a long Government statement then, and a very important one, too. I do not think that we ought to be lectured about going into something deeply at the beginning of the afternoon when part of the time was taken up with a statement. Everybody who has spoken has done so with deep seriousness. There has been no suggestion of wasting time or not dealing with the matter in depth. I think the Chief Whip's lecture was very slightly misplaced.
Lord Denham: I would never dare to lecture the noble Baroness, nor indeed the House, because it would be counter-productive. All I was doing was making suggestions which I hope will be taken in the spirit in which they were meant. With that, and in the hope that we can finish this very important Bill, as I say expeditiously and evenly, when we come to consider it again, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.