Lords Sitting of 31 July 1981

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

Public Service Pensions: Indexation
Lord Harris of High Cross: 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 have considered how far to modify the indexation of public service pensions in the light both of the Scott Report and of the severe economic pressures on incomes in the private sector.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government are considering in detail the issues raised by the Scott Report. No decisions have yet been taken, but we hope to reach initial conclusions within the next few months.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, naturally I thank the noble Lord for that rather sparse Answer, coming six months after the publication of the Scott Report. Is the Minister aware that statutory and discretionary indexation has been extended rather surreptitiously until it embraces over 5 million people employed in nationalised industries and in central and local government? Accordingly, will the Government take a rather hard look at two aspects of present arrangements? The first is whether the Government Actuary underestimated the cost of indexed Civil Service pensions, which he put in the Scott Report at 16·8 per cent. of salaries, whereas the Scott Report estimated that perhaps a figure twice as high—namely, 36 per cent. of salaries—might be more appropriate.
Several Noble Lords:Speech!
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, the second question concerns the choice of index. Do the Government consider that the retail price index is appropriate for calculating indexation when it reflects not only the debasement of the national money but also a rise in relative import prices and shifts to taxes on expenditure, such as VAT?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the Scott Report raised far-reaching and important issues which require very careful consideration. In these circumstances I think that the time taken—which is an indication of the depth of consideration which has been given—is not unreasonable.
On the other points raised by the noble Lord, the Government give attention to all representations received and views expressed, including those expressed
880
by the noble Lord. But I suggest that the right course would be to wait until such time as the Government have stated their initial conclusions.
Lord Plant: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Government Actuary did not overestimate the effect of index-linking on Civil Service pensions? Will he also agree that having just settled a long Civil Service strike, to have another confrontation would not be in the best interests of the country?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not think that this would be the right occasion on which to endeavour to debate the Scott Report. On the Civil Service dispute, that has now been settled, and I think the important thing is to try to restore harmonious relations rather than indulge in discussion of the issue.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is quite impossible to cost either the value of an inflation-proofed pension or the liability that it places on an employer? For that reason, does he agree that no private employer can afford to fund such pensions? Will these be factors which are taken into account in the present considerations?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, of course I note what my noble friend says. These particular issues were discussed at length in the Scott Report itself, which is now the subject of the Government's detailed consideration.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House the assurance that the limited pledges that have already been made by Her Majesty's Government, or on their behalf, in regard to indexation will, in fact, be honoured in any event?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we are, of course, aware of various statements which were made and which are, no doubt, those that the noble Lord has in mind. These are a matter of importance and full regard will be paid to them in consideration of this problem.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when the Government are considering public service pensions will they perhaps by some accident—extend that consideration to include Members of this House?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, in so far as Members of this House draw pensions, they are covered by a different pension scheme from those which were the subject of the Scott Committee Report.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, that was not quite the answer that I sought. My question was directed at the Minister in order to ascertain whether long-service and somewhat elderly Members of this House could themselves look forward to a pension under this new scheme.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am well aware of the point that the noble Lord was trying to make, but I fear that it lies outside the ambit of the Question on the Order Paper.

Radiotelephones: Wave Band Allocations
11.12 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: 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 when they propose to allot wave band channels to British Telecom to enable it to meet demands for car telephone installations within the Greater London area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government recognise the force of British Telecom's case for further radio channels with which to satisfy the demand for radiotelephones in the Greater London area, but it will be some time before an additional allocation is possible. The radio spectrum required is not available. As from next year there will, under the relevant international regulations, be a new band allocated to the mobile service generally, though it will remain allocated also to its present users. British Telecom is not the only would-be new user of a necessarily limited resource, and the needs of all mobile radio users are under study.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all the equipments are available for this service to be put into immediate operation? The terminal equipments are available and the mobile instruments themselves are available. Only the wavelength allocation appears to be the problem. Is the noble Lord further aware that at the existing rate of progress it will be between four and six years before the existing waiting lists can even be significantly approached? Does he think this a really satisfactory position? Can he undertake that a further and urgent review will be given of the existing allocations with a view to ensuring that the utmost priority is given to those waveband allocations that are most urgently required by British industry and by British commerce at this time?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the problem which lies at the heart of the noble Lord's Question is that there is a radio frequency constraint; but I do not think that the picture is quite so dark as it is painted by the noble Lord in his supplementary question because there is scope for more intensive use of the existing radio allocation for this purpose. Since the beginning of the radiotelephone service the standard adopted has been 25 kilohertz channel spacing giving 55 channels which have accommodated some 3,600 subscribers in the London area. I know that British Telecom is now going to reduce the band width to 12½ kilohertz channel spacing, and this should substantially ease the backlog of applications.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, bearing in mind that civilisation and business activity do not stop at Watford, could my noble friend say what the position is further afield, in places like Birmingham and other important centres?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is raising is in fact to be found in London only. In the seven other areas where British Telecom's service is available there is the ability to meet demand, and I am referring there not only to British Telecom but also to the various private operators who are licensed to produce this service.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord at least give the House the assurance that a further immediate and urgent review will be made of the existing users, to make quite sure that the priorities are correctly evaluated? Is he further aware that even though the 12½ kilohertz band is adopted by British Telecom, it will go nowhere near to satisfying the demand and it will not substantially reduce the delay?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that it will substantially reduce the delay, and indeed I think it is right that British Telecom should be doing this. They will be making the same use of their frequencies as is being made, and has been made over past years, by commercial operators. However, the noble Lord asked me a perfectly fair question about the future, and may I respond in this way: a band around 900 megahertz is next year going to become available for allocation to the mobile service, including radiotelephones, though it will remain allocated at the same time to the existing users who are in fact Ministry of Defence installations. I know that the Mobile Radio Committee established by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be looking very carefully not only at an allocation, within that wave band, but also for the mobile radio services generally for the rest of this century.

Civil Service Dispute: Benefit Payments
11.17 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 to state which national insurance and social security benefits have been withheld from or delayed in payment to those entitled to them as a result of action by civil servants in pursuance of their own claims; and what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that benefits are promptly paid.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the vast majority of social security beneficiaries have continued to receive their full entitlement during the civil service dispute. But I regret to say that since 8th June it has not been possible to pay child benefit for newly-born children. Since 6th July new retirement pensioners have been paid a flat-rate interim payment until the correct entitlement can be calculated after the dispute is over. A few war pensioners normally paid monthly by the Paymaster General's Office have not been

883
receiving payment but arrangements have been made for them to be paid if they contact a local office. In a few unemployment benefit offices staff are refusing to issue girochequcs: payments are being made by DHSS offices or, in a very few instances, by local authorities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that comprehensive and informative reply, and congratulating the Government on yesterday's announcement as to the outcome of the quiet firmness with which they have handled this dispute, may I ask him whether, in the light of yesterday's announcement, urgent steps will now be taken, if necessary by giving priority in instructions to the staff returning to duty, to pay those arrears which have been, as he has told the House, outstanding for some little time and which, despite the efforts of the Government, have caused very considerable hardship?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of my noble friend and his congratulations to the Government. Although the Civil Service strike is ending and those on strike will be returning to work next week, there is a considerable backlog of work, as my noble friend mentioned, caused by the stoppage of the computer which maintains the record of national insurance contributions and the computers which pay child benefit and unemployment benefit. I must make it clear to the noble Lord that it will be many months before recovery is completed in all areas. We shall give priority to recovery in areas affecting payment of benefits and the special arrangements for paying benefits which were introduced during the industrial action will continue until normal arrangements are operating.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all forms of industrial action hurt those who believe they have been compelled to undertake it, and many others as well? That is the saddest part of industrial action. When, however, peace comes—and the settlement of yesterday we all hope indicates peace—should not the concentration of the Government be not on making any rash or belligerent statements but on seeking harmony with the Civil Service unions and returning to the high standard we have enjoyed in this country? May I ask the noble Lord to look not unkindly at some of the proposals that are being made, and to dismiss the statements of those who want to exacerbate the situation despite the settlement that has been agreed?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am sure those are very wise words, my Lords.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I am wondering whether I understood the Minister correctly when I gathered him to say that maternity benefits are probably some of those that are not being paid on the due date. Naturally, I have no interest to declare.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I did not quite catch what the noble Lord said, my Lords; would he mind repeating it?
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, are maternity benefits some of the benefits which are not being paid on the due date? In order to make the position quite clear, I added that I had no interest to declare.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I now realise the point the noble Lord was making. I am interested to know that he has no interest in maternity benefits.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to ask the departments concerned to expedite the payments to widows because they have been in very great trouble, especially those who are bringing up children, and suffering real hardship?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I feel sure the widows will have a high priority, my Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of the very deep anxiety which the situation has given rise to among the beneficiaries concerned—which will not be wholly mitigated by his indication that it will be some months before payments are normal—will my noble friend arrange that periodic statements be made, during the Recess and on the resumption of the House, of the progress made in restoring normal payments? Is he aware that this is a matter of almost life and death importance for a very large proportion of the least fortunate of our fellow citizens?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I could not be more grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion, which I will certainly pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

The Madrid Conference
11.23 a.m.
Lord Brockway: 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 were the conclusions of the Madrid Conference on European Security and Co-operation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Madrid meeting has recessed until 27th October. It will then aim to reach agreement on a substantial and balanced final document by mid-December. Although language has been provisionally registered in the areas of human contacts, culture, education and economic co-operation, agreement has still to be reached on human rights and military security questions which remain under negotiation.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether the representative of Her Majesty's Government at Madrid at the resumed meetings will support the proposal of the non-aligned nations—it being a compromise proposal between the Soviet demand for extending monitoring of manoeuvres across the Atlantic to America and Canada—the compromise proposal that

885
it should apply only in the East Atlantic, from the Urals to the East Atlantic? Would he agree that that suggestion by the non-aligned nations should be supported?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, during the period when the conference is in recess, there will of course be considerable consultations, and that is certainly one of the points that will be consulted upon.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has there so far been any indication at this conference, or in the discussions which accompany it, that the Soviet Union are showing any improvement in their attitude towards those with whom they disagree whom they imprison or send to asylums merely because they are trying to establish human rights in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement or endeavouring to monitor progress under that agreement?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the House will know, the Government strongly believe that any individual or organisation has the right to monitor their, or other, Government's compliance with the provisions of the Final Act. We have pressed, and shall continue to press, at Madrid and elsewhere for an end to the deplorable practice to which my noble friend referred, and, in answer to him, I should say that strong pressure is still required.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in addition to the need to achieve agreement for allowing freedom of expression on these matters, may I ask the noble Lord to look at another connected issue, which is the continued refusal of the Soviet authorities to permit the free movement out of the country of people who want to join their families abroad, as exemplified by the case of Igor Korschnoy, the son of Grand Master Victor Korschnoy, who for years has been prevented from joining his father in Switzerland, and Anatoli Shcharansky, the well-known computer expert, who has been detained and prevented from joining his wife in Israel?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, we shall most certainly continue to look at that matter and keep up the pressure.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while concentration on the human rights aspects of these discussions is important, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the peace aspects are equally important? Will the Government, in giving due consideration to the matters raised by his noble friend, not ignore the primary consideration raised by my noble friend Lord Brockway?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I certainly agree that the military aspect is the key to these entire negotiations.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would it be possible to get some publicity for what is going on at this endless conference, which I am sure we must keep going? The public and the rest of us really do not know what issues are emerging and what is being debated. The energy of my noble friend Lord Brockway lifts the curtain of ignorance from time to time, but cannot something be done to publicise what the issues are? They are obviously crucial issues and
886
there is a serious lack of communication and information here so that the public may know what is going on at this vitally important international discussion of matters of grave significance.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while these discussions are going on, to a certain extent they remain confidential until an agreement has been reached. However, I am able to tell the noble and learned Lord what has been achieved. One of our major objectives was to conduct a frank and thorough exchange of views on the way in which participating states had implemented the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act in the period since the Belgrade Review meeting. That review took place in the six-week period before the Christmas 1980 Recess and enabled the British as well as Western, neutral and non-aligned delegations to draw attention to serious violations of Final Act provisions relating to human rights as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, in the course of negotiations on a final document, provisional agreement has been registered in the areas of human contacts, family reunification and information and economic exchanges. Those texts represent an advance on commitments to the Helsinki Final Act, and I hope that information is of help to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who are raising this matter are as concerned about human rights in the Soviet Union and communist countries as any member of this House? Is he aware that some of the dissidents in Czechoslovakia have been my friends for nearly 50 years? May I ask him to pay especial attention to this: is not the necessity to include the East Atlantic in any agreement indicated by the fact that in September there are to be concurrent naval manoeuvres between the United States, eight NATO countries and three of the worst dictatorships in Latin America? Does not that show some need to include the East Atlantic in any monitoring, and is it not very dangerous for the whole military situation in Europe?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as always, I have listened to, and learned from, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and most certainly I shall take his point under review, as I do indeed all his points.

Employment and Training Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

Royal Assent
11.30 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Transport Act,

Employment and Training Act,

Ullapool Pier Order Confirmation Act,

Great Yarmouth Borough Council Act.

British Nationality Bill
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must apologise to the House for the fact that in some copies of the Order Paper I believe that the Motion I now move is shown as relating to the Transport Bill, which obviously is an error. In the copy of the Order Paper that I have, there is no mention at all of the Motion relating to any Bill, except that there appear in manuscript the words "British Nationality". I should like to assure your Lordships that the Motion refers to the British Nationality Bill, and that the clauses and the schedules are set down in the same order as your Lordships thought it right to take them in Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 5

Schedule 1, paragraphs 1 to 4

Clauses 6 to 18

Schedule 1, paragraphs 5 to 10

Clauses 19 to 36

Schedule 2

Clause 37

Schedule 3

Clauses 38 and 39

Schedule 4

Clauses 40 to 42

Schedule 5

Clauses 43 to 50

Schedule 6

Clauses 51 and 52

Schedules 7 to 9

Clause 53.

—(Lord Belstead.)

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and which relates to the British Nationality Bill, be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 [Statement of child's special educational needs]:
11.33 a.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—
("shall serve on the parent of the child concerned—

(a) a copy of the proposed statement; and

(b) a written explanation of the effect of subsections (4) to (4C) below.

(4) If the parent on whom a copy of a proposed statement has been served under subsection (3)(a) above disagrees with any part of the proposed statement he may, before the expiry of the appropriate period—

(a) make representations (or further representations) to the authority about the content of the proposed statement;

(b) require the authority to arrange a meeting between him and an officer of the authority at which the proposed statement can be discussed.

(4A) Where a parent, having attended a meeting arranged by a local education authority under subsection (4)(b) above, disagrees with any part of the assessment in question he may, before the expiry of the appropriate period, require the authority to arrange one or more meetings under subsection (4B) below.
(4B) Where a local education authority receive a request duly made under subsection (4A) above they shall arrange such meeting or meetings as they consider will enable the parent to discuss the relevant advice with the appropriate person or persons.
In this subsection—
"relevant advice" means such of the advice given to the authority in connection with the assessment as they consider to be relevant to that part of the assessment with which the parent disagrees; and
"appropriate person" means the person who gave the relevant advice or any other person who, in the opinion of the authority, is the appropriate person to discuss it with the parent.
(4C) In this section "appropriate period" means the period of 15 days beginning—

(a) in the case of a request under subsection (4)(b) above, with the date on which the statement mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above was served on the parent;

(b) in the case of a request under subsection (4A) above, with the date fixed for the meeting arranged under subsection (4)(b) above; and

(c) in the case of representations, or further representations, under subsection (4)(a) above—

(i) with the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above; or

(ii) if one or more meetings have been arranged under the preceding provision of this section, with the date fixed for the last of those meetings.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. The House will recall that yesterday we had a long debate on the whole issue of confidentiality, in the course of which I spoke to this particular amendment, so I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating what I said on that occasion. However, there are two points that I should like to make. First, I wish to say to the House that the Government have brought forward the amendment in response to the concern which has been expressed not only by Members of your Lordships' House, but by Members of another place, members of voluntary organisations and others, on the issue of confidentiality. Therefore I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House.
I also wish to remind the House that assessment is a continuous process, in which the making of a statement might come at a relatively late stage. One of the objects of the Bill is to bring in parents at every stage, and parents will be in contact with some professionals before the local education authority proposes to institute multi-professional assessment. Parents will have the right to be present at all examinations on which reports to the LEA are based. It would be unusual if parents did not know the professional recommendations made and the grounds for them. Therefore the amendment will allow parents to clear

889
up any misunderstanding about the statement face to face with those contributing to it. It should also have an effect on professional practices and in encouraging the sharing of information before reports are made to the LEA. since the professionals will wish to avoid a second series of interviews. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment will have the effect of strengthening good practice in sharing information between parents and professionals at an early stage in assessment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I shall now call Amendment No. 16 as an amendment to Amendment No. 15.
Lord Rentonhad given notice of his intention to move as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 16:
Subsection (4), at end insert ("and at which all relevant information on which the proposed statement was made shall be disclosed at the request of the parent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to relieve your Lordships' anxiety by saying that I do not propose to move this amendment, but I should like to speak to Amendment No. 15, which has just been moved by my noble friend Lady Young, and I trust that this is the moment for me to do so, having made it clear that I do not wish to move Amendment No. 16.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I think I should just say that this amendment is not moved. Therefore the Question is, That Amendment No. 15 be agreed to.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. It would be churlish not to acknowledge the considerable trouble and careful thought which my noble friend Lady Young has undertaken in preparing and tabling the amendment. We should not hold against her the fact that, although this is a very important amendment to the Bill, she gave only a short explanation of it this morning, since in fact she gave a very full explanation of it yesterday when speaking to an earlier amendment to Clause 5. I have no wish to undo the good work that she has done in saving time. I would say merely that her amendment is indeed welcome. I still feel that with regard to Clause 7 we need to give the matter further thought, and I trust that in a few moments I shall have the opportunity of moving Amendment No. 17. I support my noble friend in her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question, since I was puzzled about the wording of the Government's amendment. Under subsection (4) a parent can have a meeting with an officer of the authority if he disagrees with any part of the proposed statement. But under subsection (4A) he may ask for one or more meetings with the appropriate person or persons if he disagrees with any part of the assessment in question. Surely the term "assessment" covers not only the examination, at which the parent can of course be present, but also the conclusions drawn by the professionals from the examination, and consequently the reports that they make. If the parent cannot see the report, how is he to know whether he disagrees with any part of the assessment?
890
I think I now realise that the words "in question" after the word "assessment" probably qualify the matter in order to mean the details of the authority's assessment as contained in the first part of the statement. However, I should like the Minister to clarify the point, since otherwise there seems to be contradiction in terms in her amendment.
Lord Digby: I very much wish to welcome the amendment, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Renton has not moved his amendment. The important point is that there should be confidence between the authority and the parents, and that the whole process should go as smoothly as possible. I appreciate that this does not always happen, but I believe that the amendment will help that confidence and will ensure that the parent can be told by the officials exactly what is the situation.
Many of the amendments have assumed that the local authority officials are trying to do down the parent in some way. I should like to go to the other extreme. I believe that certainly 99 per cent. of education and social services officers have the interests of the child at heart; in fact, I would say that 100 per cent. of them do. I do not say that they always get it right—no one can get it right—but they are trying. However, so far as parents are concerned, obviously they are all interested in the good of their children, but there is a small minority of parents who will want to make difficulties and trouble, and I should like to ask the noble Baroness where in the amendment are the words appropriate to that situation.
I am afraid that I am slightly muddled between subsection (4)(a) and subsection (4A). I presume that when the Bill is printed, after becoming an Act, subsection (4A) will become (5)(a). Anyway, it is the subsection (4A) at the bottom of the first page of the Marshalled List, where it states that the parent may:
"require the authority to arrange one or more meetings under subsection (4B) below".
Does this provision for the "one or more meetings" take priority over (4B), where it says that the local education authority
"shall arrange such meeting or meetings as they consider will enable the parent to discuss the relevant advice with the appropriate person or persons."?
I believe it is very important that there should be a sufficient number of meetings to make the situation clear but that a difficult parent who wants to make trouble should not be able to require endless meetings. I am sure the object must be to reach agreement between the parent and the authority and for matters be to as smooth-working as possible. May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her assurance that "further meetings" are meetings at which the parent will be able to discuss the relevant advice?
11.41 a.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to answer the two questions which have been raised. Before doing so, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Renton for the welcome he gave to this amendment. I recognise that the amendment does not go as far as he and some other noble Lords would like, but I believe it goes a very long way towards meeting the points concerning parents'

891
rights which they want to see covered.
With regard to the question which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I should like to say that her explanation of the terms "assessment" and "statement" were absolutely correct. The assessment leads to a statement and it provides an opportunity for the parent to discuss matters with the professional at that stage, because this is the stage at which the parent will be concerned—when a draft assessment will have been made and the parent is worried at about what it says. The parents can ask for an interview with one of the professionals concerned and it is at this stage that the interviews would take place, leading to the statement. I do not consider that there is any contradiction here. I must apologise for the length of the wording of this amendment, which I recognise is complicated, but it is very necessary to get the wording right, and if there are any doubts about the explanation I would be very happy in the Recess to write further to any noble Lords about this.
On the point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Digby, about the number of meetings, I would say to him that I welcome his support for this amendment and, as someone who is very much involved in local government, his assurances about integrity and the hard work of those in local government who will be responsible for working out the procedures laid down in this Bill. As he quite rightly said, we have given parents the opportunity to have more than one meeting. The reality of life is such that if a parent is seriously worried about his child and the assessment of his child, he may well have a meeting with a professional officer who has been involved and, as so often happens, not ask all the questions that he meant to ask on that occasion. The parent might think of some more questions and may then want to go back for a second meeting. The possibility is contained in these proposals.
Clearly if parents asked for an extraordinary number of meetings, this would not be helpful to the child, and the local authority would be justifiably concerned if the meetings went on and on. But under these procedures, there would be a fortnight's interval between one meeting ending and notice of a second meeting being given; and this interval would give the parents a chance to come back on anything else. What we want to do is to meet the real concerns of parents; the people who inevitably are going to be very worried about their child, and we want assurances that these worries will be ironed out.
May I say that all of this will be a long process and it will build very much on establishing a good relationship between the parents and the authority and between the parents and the professional concerned. That is why in my opening remarks I said that we believe this amendment will encourage the best practice that we now have, whereby parents have the opportunity to discuss very fully with professionals their concerns about their child. As I have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I recognise that this is a long amendment but it comes at one of the later stages in the Bill. If on reflection any noble Lord is uncertain about its meaning, I would be very happy to follow up any points in correspondence during the Recess.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for the care and thought which she has given to this very important and difficult matter. I have only one brief query, which concerns the wording of the amendment. Is there any significance in the use of the words:
"shall serve on the parent of the child concerned."
et cetera? That seems to me to have rather a military undertone. One has writs and summonses served upon one, whereas throughout the rest of the Bill we talk about "notifying" a parent or "informing" a parent. For instance, in the Government Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 the words "notify" or "informing" are used. I wonder if there is any legalistic process in the background which makes the use of the wording "serve on the parent" essential. It does not sound to ordinary people so friendly as the other references in the Bill.
I should also like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether in the guidance which will be sent out she will remind officials—if indeed she considers it necessary to do so—that, when sending written explanations, some attention should be paid to the language difficulties which we discussed yesterday, because much of this helpful amendment will be wasted if care is not taken to ensure that a minority of parents are able to understand the letters which are sent to them.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask one further question about the length of time involved? The Minister herself was anxious when we were trying to extend the notification period from 15 days to 21 days that a child might be out of school for some time. If there are to be further meetings and further representations, I wonder whether a professional will always be available at the time he is wanted? Has the department thought out what is going to happen to the child during what could be a very lengthy process?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I wish to do no more than to express the gratitude of my noble friends on these Benches to the noble Baroness for what she has done in this amendment. She knows very well that I might have preferred a slightly different solution but, not having been successful in achieving that, I do want to say how very grateful I am to the noble Baroness the Minister for what she has done here. I take the view that three-quarters of a loaf—which is what we have got—is certainly a great deal better than no bread, and so we are most grateful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for the welcome that he has given to this amendment. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, we take her point about the language problem. Throughout the guidance which we shall issue on the Act we shall emphasise the need to ensure that parents understand what is going on—if necessary, by arranging an oral explanation to back up the letter. This is essential to the working of the Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, was quite right in reminding the House of the amendment which she moved in Committee, when she was concerned that

893
15 days was an insufficient length of time for making representations on the statement. I had hoped very much that she would feel that parents' interests were taken into account fully on this amendment, because there could be a sequence of 15 days. Of course, it may well be, as she says, that the professional involved may not be available at the particular time, and there may be a bigger gap than that. The point was that the parent should indicate within the two-week period of time that they would like to discuss it further with the professional.
Clearly we shall have to take account of the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Digby, where, if this process ran on for a long time and the child was out of school, it might be necessary to look at the matter again; but we do not believe that it would be right at the moment to alter the wording here. I think this would be the appropriate way to deal with it.
I must apologise to the noble Baroness because I forgot to answer her other point about serving a notice. The word "serve" is used to attract the provisions of Section 113 of the Education Act 1944, which enables the notice to be served by post. This, in turn, attracts the provisions of the Interpretation Act, which provides that the notice is deemed to be served on the day when it would be received in the ordinary course of post. I am quite certain that she will recognise that this is a legal answer to this point. It does not in any way mean that the attitude of those who are sending it would be any different from that relating to any other part of the Bill. It is merely complying with this legal requirement, and I hope that that meets her point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.52 a.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 17:—
Page 6, line 21, at end insert ("and, at the request of the parent, provide all the relevant information on which any such statement was based or which caused the authority not to make a statement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17, which raises in relation to statements under Clause 7 the issue of confidentiality, on which we had a full discussion yesterday in relation to assessments under Clause 5. That issue was decided by a narrow margin of 93 votes to 88. Unaccustomed as I am to flogging dead horses, and lest it be thought that the issue under Clause 7 was decided under Clause 5 yesterday, may I say that the issue under Clause 7 raises a different matter. It is a completely different situation under Clause 7, as I will explain.
Under Clause 5 we discussed assessments which will frequently be made—in fact, it could be said will generally be made—at a very early stage in a child's life; sometimes, perhaps, even before the child is a year old, and often before it is two years old, as we can understand when we look at Clause 6 of the Bill. At that early stage the shock to the parents of learning the reality will be considerable, but by the time that statements come to be made under Clause 7 the parents will have become accustomed to the situation. We
894
hope that they will generally have got over the shock.
So the argument that it may upset them, that they may not be able to take it, will, I would suggest, scarcely, if ever, apply by the time we come to the stage of making statements under Clause 3. By that stage they really should be treated like adults. I had a feeling yesterday during our discussions that we were treating parents in some ways as though they were almost children instead of treating them as adults. But by the time that the statements come to be made, surely the case for full disclosure to them is even stronger than it was under Clause 5.
My Lords, may I briefly refer to the wording of Amendment No. 17? Your Lordships will see that it simply adds something to subsection (5) of Clause 7, which remains undisturbed by any amendment moved by my noble friend on behalf of the Government. If your Lordships will turn to subsection (5) of Clause 7—and I think it is worth reading it out—it says:
"Where any such representations are made to a local education authority the authority may, after considering those representations—

(a) make a statement in the form originally proposed;

(b) make a statement in a modified form; or"—

and this is important—
"(c) determine not to make a statement; and shall notify the parent in writing of their decision."
I suggest that it would be of great help to the parents and, indeed, to all concerned if we added the words in my amendment, which are:
"and, at the request of the parent, provide all the relevant information on which any such statement was based or which caused the authority not to make a statement."
In other words, the parents have the right to know fully, as well as precisely, not only the reason why a statement was made or was modified, but why no statement was made at all; and they cannot judge that situation unless they have access to everything that is relevant.
The matter does not end there, because they are given a right of appeal against the decision whether to make a statement or to modify it, or not to make it at all. How can they decide whether to exercise their right of appeal? How can they effectively appeal unless all information is made available to them? Therefore, I say—and I am afraid I make no apology for saying it—that, without wishing to invite your Lordships to indulge in the full discussion that we had yesterday under Clause 5, we have a different situation today under Clause 7, and I suggest that it would be appropriate to add the words that I have used, and used sparingly, in this Amendment No. 17. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to give my fullest support to Lord Renton. I think that, in the end, the main reason why I withdrew my compromise Amendment No. 14 to Clause 5 last night was because I became convinced that there can be no half-measures. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said in Committee when we first debated this subject, at col. 542:
"…whatever may be the dangers of knowledge, to parents or any others, they are nothing compared with the dangers of ignorance ".—[Official Report, 6/7/81.]
Lord Robbins: My Lords, I should like briefly to

895
support Lord Renton's amendment, which in my judgment harmonises completely with the humane intentions which inspired the noble Baroness in framing her original amendment.
Lord Digby: My Lords, this may well be a different point but the basis is still the same and I must repeat my objection to this, which is that those writing reports will always be looking over their shoulder and saying, "If someone queries this opinion here, or that opinion there …". I believe that the reports will not be as full and as helpful as if they are made in the normal process, without having to be looked at in detail by the parents. I also feel that this sort of amendment rather invites friction by giving these rights, suggesting that they must get all these things. I hope that it will not be passed.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has said everything that I was going to say, but I should like to add one point about the difficulty of parents seeing reports. An analogy with magistrates' courts can be made: where there is a social inquiry report, and possibly a pyschiatric report as well, the person concerned has to see the reports. It is part of the duty for these to be seen. If it can be faced up to there, I think it could perfectly well be here.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, on that point may I say that it is perfectly correct that in a court of law parents must see the reports submitted to the magistrates, but they do not see the documents on which the report was made; they do not see the case file. I just wanted to clarify that point.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I understand very well the sincerity of my noble friend Lord Renton on this matter of confidentiality, but I very much hope that he will not feel at any stage that I or any of my colleagues in another place who have been concerned with this Bill have ever taken the attitude towards parents of not treating them like adults. It would be most unfortunate if anybody believed that that was our attitude; it certainly is not. I think it is very important for parents to understand that one of the underlying principles of this Bill is parental inolvement at every stage.
I was very grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who has very sensibly drawn this distinction between the statement which the parent will see and the reports lying behind it. I think we need to keep this distinction in mind and I have been grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Digby. Lord Renton is quite right in saying that his amendment is different from the one that he moved to Clause 5, because this amendment would bite after the statement had been made; it would bite after the parent had had an opportunity to make representations on the draft statement, and also to make representations under the amendment that the House has just carried, and had the opportunity to talk to professionals. It therefore comes at the end of a very long process of consultation, and I believe that at that stage
896
it would be very difficult to say that it would serve any useful purpose.
Apart from that fact, it would be very difficult for anyone who had to work this Bill, if this amendment were accepted, to know what was meant by the words, "relevant information", once the statement of a child's special education needs had been settled or the local education authority had decided not to make a statement. Therefore, it appears to me to serve no useful purpose at this stage, as the whole process set out in Clause 7 has been completed.
I should like to repeat that the parents will have had the opportunity of an interview with the local education authority and with the professionals contributing to the assessment. They will, therefore, lack no information about their child's special educational needs should they wish to appeal against the statement once it has been made. Finally, may I clear up a misunderstanding about the meaning of Clause 7(5)(c), where it says that the authority may
"determine not to make a statement;"
The only circumstances in which they would not make a statement would be if the parent involved had made representations and the authority decided not to make a statement, and therefore the parent would have been satisfied with what the authority had done and there would be no dispute between the two at all. Therefore, I think the second part of the amendment is also unnecessary. I hope that my noble friend will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Bill essentially rests over these proceedings on the development of this long period of discussion with the professionals on the child's special educational needs. The parent will have all the information that he requires if he wishes to appeal, which one hopes would be the very last thing that he would wish to do because one would hope that the difficulties would have been ironed out in these various other processes. To add this further amendment at this stage would not add anything to the rights of the parent and would not actually add anything to meet the needs of the child.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for her obviously careful and thoughtful explanation of the Government's point of view with regard to it. This is a matter on which I fear we must agree to differ, but I would not wish to press your Lordships to go through the Division Lobby this morning on the last Friday in July. So far as I am concerned, honour would be satisfied if we allowed this amendment to be negatived. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
12.7 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("notify the parent of the child concerned, in") and insert—
("serve on the parent of the child concerned—

(a) a copy of the statement;

(b) notice in writing of his right under section 8(1) of this Act to appeal against the special educational provision specified in the statement; and

(c) notice in").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is in response to the query raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in moving an amendment on similar lines to this one at Committee stage about the absence in the Bill of any specific duty upon the LEA to provide parents with a copy of the statement, once made, and to notify them of their right of appeal. She will recall that I promised to look at her point in principle and bring forward a suitable amendment if possible. As I indicated in replying to her Motion, we are fully satisfied that Clauses 7 and 8 could not be (and indeed I am sure would not be) interpreted by LEAs in such a way as to enable them to withhold from the parents the details of the final statement or information on their right to appeal. However, I am happy to meet the noble Baroness on this point and to make it explicit in the Bill that the LEA should give parents a copy of their child's statement, and inform them in writing of their right under Clause 8(1) to appeal against the special educational provision specified in the statement. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, all I can say is that I am very grateful to the noble Baroness that we have this firmly and clearly stated in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The decision of an appeal committee on any such appeal shall be binding on the local education authority by whom the decision on appeal was made, and on the governors of any county or controlled school at which the committee determines that a place should be offered to the child in question.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come on to appeals. I moved a number of amendments on Clause 8 late at night during the Committee stage of the Bill and withdrew them for, I hoped, a more auspicious moment for them to be put to the vote and not because I was convinced by the Minister's reply.
The amendment I am now moving is different in wording from those I put down before, but similar in intent. In fact, it does follow the words of Section 7(5) of the 1980 Education Act. The effect is to make the appeal committee decision binding on the LEA when it is dealing with cases of children with statements, just the same as it is binding for those without statements. If we leave the Bill as it is, there is discrimination against those perhaps 2 per cent. of children who have statements, and I consider that unjust. I should like there to be positive discrimination for them, and this is given them by their further right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Incidentally, I should like to ask the Minister whether, if parents of ordinary children (if I may so refer to them) were thoroughly dissatisfied, they could appeal to the Secretary of State under Section 68 of the 1944 Act? Maybe the Minister could answer that when she replies.
The Minister said the appeal committee might be so constituted that there would be no experts in special education on it. In our discussion on Amendment
898
No. 85 that I put down in Committee in an attempt to put that right, I was told that the Government did not believe it right to specify in the Bill who should constitute the appeal committee, although agreeing that it would be desirable to have someone with knowledge of special education on it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, suggested that advice on this matter could be included in guidance to local authorities, and the noble Baroness said that she would be happy to look at that. Assuming that that is going to happen, that is the reason why I have not put that amendment down again. So I hope that the argument that the appeal committee will not have suitable people on it can be brushed aside.
The other argument was that the decisions the appeal committee would be considering would not be precisely the same as they would be for other children. Of course, they will be not precisely the same. Surely a local authority worth its salt and putting a reasonable case to the appeal committee should be able to put it over in such a way that a sensible conclusion is reached.
If the LEA does not have the skill to put its case in a form that layman can understand, then perhaps it ought not to be accepted. I do not see the appeal committee as a tribunal or like a magistrates' court where those on it sit in judgment. It is rather a body that will listen to the parents and the LEA and endeavour to elicit new facts and feelings that may not have been clear to those who decided on the school or provision in the statement. I do not see this committee having sharp differences of opinion.
We seem to be legislating yet again for the odd, bad and unreasonable parent and in favour of the local authority. We hope that cases going to appeal will be very few. Could we not put our trust in the appeal committee and this once bring the balance down in favour of the parent?
I should like to remind the Minister of what she said in Committee (at col. 505 of Hansard of 6th July):
"one of the firm impressions I came away with after the discussions on that Act"—
she was speaking of the 1980 Act—
"and the many discussions we had particularly on the needs of children with special educational needs, was that as far as 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".
I hope that the noble Baroness will act on that now and accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said about the powers of appeal committees. I cannot pretend that this is an easy area to deal with in legislation. On the one hand, proper weight must be given to the detailed assessment that will have been carried out by a team of professionals; and, on the other, we are anxious to give parents a right of appeal which is real and not just cosmetic.
In considering the difficult issues which arise over appeals, I believe it is helpful to bear in mind what will have preceded the appeal and that parents will have reached this stage only after close consultation during the process of assessment and specific consultation on the LEA's proposals, at the time when they receive

899
a copy of the draft statement and then have yet a further opportunity to make further representations and have meetings with the professionals concerned. So this is a very long process before we get to the statement.
Secondly, I would remind the House that appeals in this area are not going to be relatively simple choice of school cases of the sort for which new provisions were introduced in the 1980 Education Act for ordinary schools. Parents of children with statements will be appealing against special educational provision and the argument may well go far wider than the actual location of where that special educational provision is to be made. Appeal committees therefore may well be faced with complicated issues spanning the vast range of handicapping conditions. Given the range and variety of complex issues which might conceivably be placed before them, we can never ensure that an appeal committee will be composed of the people with precisely the kind of expertise which may be required in each case to reach a definitive decision.
I should like at this stage to reassure the noble Baroness that the point that I made about guidance is one that we shall bear in mind because clearly it is very important that we should have the right people on appeal committees. While I believe that appeal committees will be able to deal appropriately in cases where the parent is clearly misguided in his appeal, it is going to be much more difficult for them to overturn the balanced opinion of a range of experts involved in the multi-professional assessment, particularly after the long process of consultation with the parent.
Nevertheless, there will be occasions where the appeal committee has reasonable doubts about the LEA's decision as to the special educational provision in a particular set of circumstances. In these cases, the committee can refer the matter back to the LEA with their observations, and the Bill then places LEAs under a duty to reconsider the case. If after the LEA have reconsidered the case, which might well include some further assessment of the child and an alteration of the child's statement, the parent is still dissatisfied with their proposals for meeting his child's special educational needs, then the Bill provides for the parent to have yet a further appeal to the Secretary of State. This is a specific right of appeal which is not available under the 1980 Education Act to parents of, if I may use the term, ordinary children.
Perhaps I could further clarify the point about opportunities for appeal and say that, if a parent were dissatisfied with the result of an appeal under the 1980 Act, he could complain to the Secretary of State under Section 68 on the grounds that the LEA were acting unreasonably or under Section 99 on the grounds that they were in default of a duty. The decision of the appeal committee is binding on the authority under the 1980 Act, so there is that difference.
Clearly at this stage—that is to say when a parent of a child with special educational needs has appealed, and is dissatisfied—the Secretary of State must be in possession of all the facts of the case and hence subsection (7) requires him to consult the LEA. In this way the Secretary of State will have access to any observations made by the appeal committee. With this explanation, I hope that your Lordships will accept that far from discriminating against the parents of children with statements, the provisions of the Bill
900
give them more rights and more protection than the parents of children without complex learning difficulties.
I hope that the House will accept subsection (4) as drafted. I can assure your Lordships that we have thoroughly examined what is a difficult area over a long period in consultation with all the advisers available to Government and we believe that we have struck the right balance between careful assessment and parental rights. It is for these reasons that I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I must tell her that the Government cannot accept it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not convinced by the case. If the LEA have a really good case, it should be capable of putting it over to the appeal committee. Then they would decide in favour of the LEA, of course. I still feel that I should like to press this amendment to give the parents this little bit of positive discrimination.
12.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Lawrence, L.

Barrington, V.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bishopston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Collison, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Mishcon, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robbins, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hale, L.

Stamp, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Henderson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigg, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

de Clifford, L.

Ailesbury, M.

De Freyne, L.

Alport, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Derwent, L.

Avon, E.

Digby, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bellwin, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Effingham E.

Bessborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Cockfield, L.

Energlyn, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Faithfull, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrers, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ferrier, L.

Craigavon, V.

Fortescue, E.

Crathorne, L.

Gainford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Davidson, V.

Gormanston, V.

901

Gowrie, E.

Pender, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Reigate, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renwick, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Hylton-Foster, B

St. Davids, V.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Spens, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McFadzean, L.

Swinton, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trenchard, V.

Marley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vickers, B.

Melville, V.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Norfolk, D.

Westbury, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 20A and 21 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Requests for assessments]:
12.27 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4(2) of this Act, subsection (1) of this section shall apply if a young person (whether or not he is registered at a school) or, where the authority are satisfied that the young person is not capable of expressing a request for the purposes of this section, the parent, asks the authority to arrange for an assessment to be made of the young person's educational needs in further education.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the group of amendments we are now coming to, Nos. 22, 23 and 24, all deal with 16-to-19 year olds. I want also to refer to Amendment No. 26, which adds to the definitions in Clause 20 that of a "young person" as,
"a person over compulsory school age who has not attained the age of 19 years."
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 22, which adds a third subsection to Clause 9, which deals with requests for assessments. As the clause stands, the right to request an assessment by a parent of a 16-to-19 year old under the original Clause 9 is restricted to that young person being still registered at a school. The purpose of the amendment is to widen the clause, and the new subsection permits the young person to make the request whether or not he is still registered at a school, and permits the parent to make the request, where that is deemed necessary, when the young person is not registered at a school. The words,
"whether or not he is registered at a school"
are put in to emphasise the purpose of the amendment and the fact that young people themselves can make the request even when they are still registered at a school, which they could not do under Clause 9(1). Only a parent would be able to make a request under that subsection. There could easily be a situation where a 16-year-old has left school but then changes his mind and decides he would like to go on to further education or training. This would make it possible to have an assessment in such circumstances. It gives
902
the young person, if he is capable, the right to have a say and to make decisions about his own future. It broadens the possibilities for the 16 to 19 age group.
I moved a number of amendments at Committee stage probing the Government's intentions about the 16-to-19 year olds and what they plan for children with a statement after the child ceases to be of compulsory school age. I was not satisfied with the replies from the Minister, who is prepared to wait for new legislation before the very great needs of this age group are dealt with properly and these young people have what I believe are their rights. The Minister said at col. 1495 on 17th July 1981:
"… for 16-to-19 year olds who are still at school the local education authority will have a duty under the Bill to identify those with special educational needs, and all the provisions of this Bill will apply to them. Those who have left school are not covered by the Bill. The local education authority will still have responsibilities towards them and they will be obliged to take account of any demands for further education, as they would of a demand from any non-handicapped person or any child who has not got special educational needs. Those responsibilities derive from the 1944 Act and are not being changed at present.".
The situation is that those who have left school are in limbo. The local authority will be obliged to take account of any demands—no more. They need do nothing, and that does not seem to be satisfactory. I believe that this group of young people who may not wish to stay on at school, where the provision may not be suitable for their needs, should have the rights that their fellows of the same age in school have. This is recognised in the document The Legal Basis for Further Education. I do not think it right that in this Bill which is based on the Warnock Report, in which the needs of the 16 to 19s were marked as a priority area, we should do nothing to help and encourage them to pursue further education or training. This is even more important now than when the Warnock Report was published, as unemployment has increased so dramatically, particularly in the case of young people, and young people of the kind that we are discussing. The Minister, when pressed, could give no promise that there would be a Bill in the next Session. We really cannot wait for two or even three years for this so necessary action.
My Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 follow almost exactly Sections 65B and 65C in Clause 4 of the Education (Scotland) Bill. I think that No. 24 is self-explanatory. It looks to the future provision for children with statements after 16. It provides for a compulsory appraisal of each young person during the period beginning two years before he ceases to be of school age, or during the period two years before if staying on at school after 16. The compulsory reappraisal is therefore tied to the anticipated leaving date, when that is relevant, and will overcome the situation which concerned the Minister in Committee, at col. 1496 of the Official Report, when she said:
"… it is our firm intention to make regulations as to the frequency of assessments under Clause 7(7) and to stipulate that a reassessment must be undertaken no more than two years before a child is expected to leave school. It will be important to tie this requirement to the anticipated school-leaving date rather than to the child's 16th birthday, as required by the clause."—[17/7/81.]
That was referring to my new clause, as it was then, but we have added a piece to cover that point. The

903
last part of subsection (3) covers that. So we have dealt with that difficulty.
Any intended regulations as stated by the Minister, which would stipulate an assessment within the two years before a child leaves school, will not place a duty on the LEA to report and make recommendations on what provision would benefit a child after ceasing school. Likewise, any such regulations cannot stipulate the participation of the young person at this stage of assessment, which is enshrined in Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. We feel that he should have the right to participate, if he is capable of so doing.
Before a young person is required to submit to any procedural assessment, his consent must have been obtained in all those cases where the young person is capable of expressing an informed view. A strong argument in support of this is the existing law under the Family Law Reform Act 1969, Section 8, which provides for minors who have attained the age of 16 being capable of giving effective consent to medical treatment. As assessments are to include medical examinations and, for example, psychological assessments, it seems appropriate that a requirement which makes it essential to seek the consent of the young person is extended to cover all procedures. We suggest that the appraisal should have taken place so that it is finished six months before he leaves, to allow time for his future education or training to be properly planned.
The other right which these amendments give is for the child or his parent to be informed that the statement could be discontinued, if they so wished. Finally, it gives the young person the right to have his fees paid at a further education establishment, if he is on a course that he starts before his 19th birthday. He would then be receiving free education, as do his contemporaries at school, which seems fair. Most authorities, I believe, do pay these tuition fees, but some to not and I feel very indignant about that. There should be no anomaly and I should like to guard against it. This, again, is in line with the recommendation in The Legal Basis for Further Education.
The noble Baroness said in her reply in Committee that she did not wish to suggest that the Government think the position as it stands is the right one. In fact, I think the point about all these amendments is that we agree on what needs to be done and that the 16 to 19s should have a fair deal. It is really only in the timing that there is a difference. The Minister would wait until there is a Bill published based on The Legal Basis for Further Education, and what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I feel is that to wait two or three years is very unfair to that age group. My Lords, I beg to move.
12.48 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this series of amendments which she has explained so succinctly. Although they cover a great deal of detail, I support them in principle. I think it is right to stress that this was one of the three priorities of Warnock and is really the only one which has not been fully dealt with in the Bill, unless it be said that the training of teachers,
904
which is not a matter for legislation, was another one. But so far as this one is concerned, we should bear in mind that this was a Warnock priority.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady David, was quite right in predicting that we would not get legislation for two or three years if we had to wait for the consultative process. The mills are grinding slowly within Government circles. Indeed, I see no hope at all of legislation on this matter in this Parliament. I would expect my noble friend Lady Young, in spite of the fact that these amendments were moved in only slightly different form at the Committee stage, to want to have time to consider the details still further.
May I say that I personally am committed more to the principle than to some of the details. I am not entirely happy, for example, about the timescale envisaged in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 24, where it is suggested that the work should be done between two years and six months before the termination of school age. Those periods might well be shorter and I have mentioned this to the noble Baroness, Lady David. But on the general principle of making local authorities apply their minds in good time to the question of the continued education of those between 16 and 19, I think that something should be done.
The noble Baroness is to be congratulated on the way in which she has, after very careful consideration and, no doubt, on a good deal of expert advice, formulated these amendments I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will say that, even if she does not accept the amendments at this stage, she would like to use the long Recess, and all the opportunities of careful thought which it gives, to consider this matter further so that we may return to it at the Third Reading stage. It is a well-known fact that under our rules of procedure Governments are always given—and rightly given, in my opinion—a special forbearance so far as amendments are concerned at Third Reading, if those amendments are moved by the Government in pursuance of an undertaking, at least to consider, given at Report stage. Therefore, I trust that we may receive a favourable response from my noble friend.
12.40 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the House will know that we have already debated at length the question of extending the Bill to cover further education. I am very well aware of the concern which has been felt about this. I have of course read the Warnock Report. I recognise, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, that Mrs. Warnock and her committee felt that this was a priority area. It is an area to which, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, quite rightly said, the Government attach great importance. However, as the noble Baroness will know, at present the Government are consulting on the legal basis of further education.
It is difficult when you are in the process of consulting people about a document to pick out one part of it to put into legislation before one has completed the period of consultation. So it seems to me to be important once again to show what it is that we believe can be done for young people aged 16 to 19 with special educational needs who wish to continue their education after 16. It would be quite wrong to believe, as seems

905
to be the implication of some of the remarks which have been made during the course of the passage of this Bill through Parliament, that young people will somehow be out in the cold and have no education because we cannot extend the Bill to cover further education.
We propose that in the longer term, regulations will be made under Clause 7(7) by which local education authorities will be required to arrange for at least one assessment for a child who is the subject of a statement at both the primary and secondary stages of his education. In the shorter term, the minimum requirement will be that a reassessment takes place within two years of the child leaving school. The purpose of such an assessment would be to ascertain the older child's needs, bearing in mind his forthcoming transition to post-compulsory education, to employment or to some other placement such as an adult training centre or a work preparation course. The assessment will serve to guide the young person and his parent on practical possibilities post-16.
However, as noble Lords are aware, under the existing law local education authorities must ensure that suitable provision is available either in school or in further education for young people aged 16 to 19 who ask for it. The school-leaving assessment will be necessary for the young person who wishes to continue his education, either at his own request or that of his parent.
In practice, Amendment No. 22 would affect two groups. There are those young people who have been recognised as having special educational needs while at school but who have left school and are now seeking to continue their education; and there are those who were not in special need at school but who have suffered an accident or illness since leaving school and want to resume their education. As the law stands, the local education authority has a duty towards such people up to the age of 19. In practice they will not be able to carry out that duty without first identifying the young person's needs and abilities. I recognise that the report on the legal basis of further education recommends that there should be a right to ask for an assessment, but it would not be right to assume that the machinery of this Bill would be appropriate. In any case, I believe that it would not be right to anticipate decisions on the recommendations of that report.
The noble Baroness also spoke to Amendments Nos. 23 and No. 24. I should like to assure her on Amendment No. 23, which is a new clause, that subsections (1) and (2) of this amendment are unnecessary so long as the child remains at school. However, I appreciate that it is the intention of this amendment to extend some of the provisions of the Bill into further education. As I have already indicated, we have had to acknowledge that the whole of the legal basis covering the provision of further education requires review.
Perhaps I could turn now to Amendment No. 24, another new clause. I have already indicated that it is the Government's firm intention to make regulations as to the frequency of assessments under subsection (7) of Clause 7 of the Bill and to stipulate that a reassessment must be undertaken no more than two years before a child is expected to leave school. The
906
importance of this is that a major part of the intentions of that new clause will be met by regulations.
The clause, however, goes on to place local education authorities under a duty to send copies of their reports on school-leavers to numerous other bodies. We do not believe that this would be realistic. Subsection (8)(a) would require a local authority, as local education authority, to notify themselves in another capacity, as outside the Inner London area the local education authority and the local authority are one and the same body in law.
Subsection (8)(b) requires the local education authority to send copies of their report to the health authority. I find it difficult to envisage the circumstances in which this would be necessary. All in all, subsection (8) seeks to establish what I can only describe as a rather bureaucratic arrangement which we believe would be of little benefit to the school-leaver.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred in particular to subsection (10) which seeks to impose a system of mandatory awards in favour of the child with a statement, whatever the nature of the course he wishes to pursue. This would run counter to the policies of successive Governments. Mandatory student awards are at present confined to certain designated courses, although local education authorities have discretion to make awards to students and others.
The amendment would entail a major change in making awards mandatory in respect of individual student's circumstances rather than in respect of the level of the course. A substantial increase in public expenditure would be involved and other disadvantaged groups would argue, quite properly, that similar concessions should be made to them. The amendment would moreover extend mandatory awards, albeit on a restricted basis, to the 16 to 19 age group and to part-time courses, neither of which is at present generally eligible. So the implications of this amendment for the mandatory student support system are very considerable. We do not believe that changes of such a magnitude should be made on such a narrow basis in this Bill. The needs of handicapped young people in the age group are, we believe, best dealt with by local education authorities under their existing discretionary powers.
The noble Baroness also touched very briefly on Amendment No. 26. This amendment would define "young person" as somebody over the compulsory school age but under 19. There is, however, a definition in the 1944 Act which has to be construed with this Bill, which defines "young person" as somebody over compulsory school age who has not attained the age of 18. If, therefore, Amendment No. 26 were to be carried, there would be two different definitions applying to different parts of the Education Acts. This would be undesirable and is a situation which we believe should be avoided.
I am very conscious of the concern felt over the 16- to 19-year-olds and I have given this lengthy explanation to show what in reality will happen to those pupils with special educational needs who wish to continue their education either in school or in further education. The Government accept the importance of this, an importance which is particularly great in the present economic situation, and the importance of young people being well qualified to get jobs.

907
We do not see the proposals on further education as going into the indefinite future, but my noble friend Lord Renton will understand that I cannot commit the Government to what they will say in the Queen's Speech or, indeed, about their further legislative programme.
I should like to assure the House that we accept the importance of this area. We believe that there are ways in which the problems and, quite rightly, the educational needs of young people can be met. We shall not, I hope, have any unnecessary delay over the process of consultation on our document. However, I believe it is right that we should carry this out properly and, when we have an agreed basis, that we should go forward on it. For that reason, I feel it would be quite inappropriate to include further provisions in the Bill until this whole process has been completed.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister's response was almost as I expected, but even so I am still disappointed. I should have thought that, if we had passed a clause in this Bill to do something for the 16 to 19 age group, it could have been repealed, as certain items in the 1980 Act are being repealed in this Bill. With regard to the definition of "young person", I should have thought that could have been dealt with by repealing "up to 18" in the 1944 Act. In fact "16 to 19" seems to be a more appropriate definition of a young person than "up to 18".
So far as the fees are concerned, I did not ask for mandatory awards. There was a new clause among my amendments at Committee stage, but I did not put that back at this stage. All this subsection asks is that local authorities should pay the tuition fees in respect of the young person's attendance at such institutions of full or part-time education as shall be recommended, so that they would be courses which the LEA had decided would be in the proper interests of the young person. I hope that these fees are already paid by a great many authorities.
I feel that at this time on a Friday morning it is not right to pursue this matter so although I shall not withdraw the amendment I shall, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, did earlier, allow it to be negatived.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Duty of health authority to notify parents etc.]:
12.52 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In a case falling within subsection (1) above the authority shall inform the parents as soon as possible after identification of the handicap and again after six weeks, in writing, of the services provided by government departments, public bodies and voluntary organisations which in the opinion of the authority are likely to be able to give the parent advice or assistance relating to the needs of the child and his parent.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment, not in a spirit of ingratitude towards the Government's amendment agreed to in Committee
908
but with a desire to do the best for the child and its parents and a conviction, after the discussion in Committee, that our amendment was an improvement on the Government amendment. I am only sorry that the Minister was unable to withdraw her amendment and to have consultations with us at the time. Our amendment has been redrafted, with many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
There is no question as to whether one can place a duty on the health authority. The Minister made that very clear at column 1518, and her amendment also does that. I think this amendment is an improvement upon the Government's amendment, in the first place because after six weeks you have to inform the parent of the handicapped child in writing. I think that is helpful because, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said at column 1512, the parent may not be in an emotional state to take in the information on the first occasion. Incidentally, at the Committee stage I should have stressed that the first time of informing, in our amendment, was meant to be verbally. I quite agree with the Minister that a first approach in writing is too formal but I think it is helpful to have it down on paper later.
Another reason why I think this amendment is an improvement on the Government's amendment is because it will inform the parent of the statutory as well as the voluntary services. The Minister, at column 1513, said, "Of course, the statutory organisations will be aware", but, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the parents may not be aware at this stage of the services available. I have talked to Mr. Daffyd Wigley, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows only too well the problems of handicapped children, and he feels that this should be written into the Bill.
This amendment retains the flexibility of the Government amendment. At column 1513 the Minister said that we should not require the health authority to give parents information which might be irrelevant to their needs, and this amendment does not do that either, because your Lordships will see the words, "which in the opinion of the authority are likely to be able", et cetera.
I am sorry to keep quoting the Minister, but I want to cover all the points that she made. At column 1515, when explaining the words in the Government amendment, "a particular voluntary organisation", the Minister said that this was because there might not be a local branch of a particular national organisation, and she will see that our amendment does not specify a local branch either, so it is equally flexible. Again at column 1515 the Minister said that it might not be an appropriate organisation at all, so this amendment would be an improvement because they would have a duty to inform them of the statutory organisations.
I really do hope that your Lordships and indeed—although this may be in vain—the Minister, now that she has had time to reflect, will feel that this amendment is more comprehensive than the Government's amendment but at the same time allows the same degree of flexibility. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in this

909
amendment. But, before I come to that, may I say that, although we dealt with this at Committee stage, I hope that I am not wasting time by just briefly repeating what I said then. I think it was a good thing to get Clause 10(2) added by the Government and, speaking as the chairman of one of the largest voluntary organisations, naturally I eagerly saw the words "a particular voluntary organisation" in the Government's amendment which is now subsection (2), and I assume that that means either the national or the regional or the local part of that organisation.
One other comment that I wish to make relates purely to the drafting of subsection (2). It is remarkable: we have done more than a hat trick. If we turn to page 8 of the Bill we find that the first four subsections on that page all start with the word "If". I have always thought that the word "if" is one which should be rather sparingly used in legislation. It always suggests a hypothesis, and we should not normally legislate more upon hypotheses than we have to. Therefore, I give humble warning that at Third Reading I shall try to make that part of the drafting a little more elegant, but meanwhile I pay my tribute to the draftsman for his general work on this Bill. I think it has been extremely well done and I hope I may be forgiven for making that very small point.
I now come to the present amendment, No. 25. which of course goes very much further. Some people might think that it goes a little too far in writing into legislation detailed instructions to be given to local authorities; the kind of instructions that might in the normal way be given in an administrative directive by a Government department or by just leaving it to the local authority to be as zealous as it possibly can. So, having said that, why do I nevertheless support this amendment, even to the extent of having put my name to it? I do so for two reasons: first, one must accept the distress which some parents, not always well-educated, generally young, will feel about the revelation of mental handicap that will have come to them and because of the knowledge of the need, which explained in detail at Committee stage, that the parents will have—a need which, as I tried to explain with the aid of statistics, is not met as often as might be expected. That is my first reason for supporting this somewhat detailed amendment.
My second reason is that it was an amendment which found favour in another place among members of all parties. It was something which the Government undertook to consider further, and further consideration has simply resulted in subsection (2) of Clause 10, whereas, if my noble friend Lady Young felt that she could go a step closer to what was wanted by members of all parties in another place and is now proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), then a great many people would be pleased. I support this amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to add my support very briefly for this amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am glad that we have in Clause 10(2), but, like them, I prefer the amendment which, as they have pointed out, is more comprehensive. I think it is important to have Government
910
departments and public bodies included with voluntary organisations under this heading, and I think it is important to have the second notification, for reasons which I mentioned at Second Reading and to which the noble Baroness referred. I also think it is important to have the second notification in writing so that the parent will have something to refer to when the need for help perhaps becomes more immediate; perhaps what has been said verbally is not remembered, and there the parent will have something in writing which can be referred to and which has been received at a time when the parent is perhaps more ready to think about the importance of the back-up support that is available. So I am very happy to support this amendment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we support this amendment. Most of the arguments have already been very well deployed. In the first place I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that by beginning this clause with the word "If" there is the possibility of creating an alibi for some official who may not be 100 per cent. in keen pursuit of his or her work. We do think that putting in a time limit is important. Also, the linking of Government departments, public bodies and voluntary organisations all together in the clause would, I think, go some small way towards more integration and co-operation. For these reasons we support the amendment.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should like, also briefly, to support this amendment. It seems to me the parents need to know of every possible supportive organisation, and the authority could indeed indicate which of the organisations concerned they thought would be most helpful in the particular case concerned.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think it has often been my experience in speaking either for the Government or indeed for the Opposition on legislation, that the Government have actually brought forward an amendment to meet the concerns expressed in another place and in this House to find that the House is dissatisfied with it and wishes to rewrite the amendment, rather on the basis, which I thought was well put by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that three-quarters of a loaf is usually better than no bread. In this particular case, I think the way that Clause 10(2) has been drafted does actually meet the point that was made, certainly to me and certainly as a result of discussions in another place about the role of the voluntary organisations.
The Government recognise—I recognise—anyone who has had any experience in the field of handicapped children recognises and understands the real distress of parents on learning that they have a handicapped child. Nobody doubts that at all. This clause is designed to help parents in the very early days with support organisations. I think it should be seen in that light. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, in speaking to this amendment, said that he thought that it might look as if we were placing a rather heavy bureaucratic administration on local authorities, and I think this is true. In fact, the amendment that is before the House is very similar to one moved in another place by Mr. Clement Freud.

911
Our response in regard to this has been Clause 10(2), which has come about as a result of discussions in another place and subsequently about the role of voluntary organisations, because we recognise that there is a need for advice to be available to parents of handicapped babies. Very often, however, that advice needs to be given in response to a particular problem when it arises, rather than being tucked away in a pile of pamphlets handed out to them at the maternity hospital and possibly put aside because the parents are too preoccupied with the new baby to settle down and study them. What we believe is needed is a source of advice on tap. This source of advice may be the health visitor, and in most cases I suspect it will be the health visitor; it could be the local office of the DHSS, or it could be a voluntary organisation. We think, therefore, that it would be helpful if the health authority could give the parents the piece of information; namely, the name of the voluntary organisation, if there is one, which is likely to be helpful to them in their particular circumstances.
I hope that in considering this amendment your Lordships will bear in mind two things. We have before us an education Bill; it is not a social services Bill. Secondly, I hope your Lordships will bear in mind the need for flexibility in the response the health service makes in respect of individual parents. Health authorities have handicapped teams specifically to deal with the sort of problems we have discussed, and hospital social workers have a very important role as well. I must tell the House that the Government are not able to accept this amendment. We do believe that it is a much more bureaucratic approach than the amendment we have brought forward on voluntary organisations. We believe that the way the Bill is drafted does give a much more flexible approach to meet what we all recognise as very real problems.
I shall comment on the drafting points made by my noble friend Lord Renton only to say that of course much of this Bill is concerned with certain specific cases. I think that is why subsections begin with the word, "if", because they do not necessarily apply appropriately in every case or mean that some activity follows upon it. It is because we wish to see flexibility, which was surely one of the keynotes of Mrs.Warnock's report, that the Bill has been drafted the way it has. I hope the House will accept the Government amendment as it stands in Clause 10, and will feel that it does meet the needs, which we recognise as important ones, of parents with handicapped babies.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. I really had hoped that we could in one aspect at least have the whole loaf for the child with special educational needs. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I think it does show how strongly they feel how much better our amendment is. However, I am perfectly sure that the speeches here and the support expressed is not indicative of what the voting would be. I do not propose to divide the House, but I will allow the amendment to be negatived.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Assessments and statements of special educational needs.]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 16, line 12, leave out ("and transfer") and insert ("transfer and discontinuance").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that this is purely a probing amendment seeking clarification of something which she said at Committee when I spoke to a similar amendment. One of the circumstances in which an LEA would cease to maintain the statement, the Minister explained at col. 1549, was if the child went to live outside the area of the authority which made the statement; the records could be passed on, but it would be for the new local education authority to decide whether to make a statement. From this explanation it would appear that a child who has a statement in one area might not need it in the next. In paragraph 3 we see that the statement is, broadly speaking, divided into two parts: first, assessment of the child's special educational needs; and secondly, the special educational provisions to be made for meeting his needs.
In Committee, at col. 550, the Minister explained the factors governing a local education authority's decision whether or not to determine special educational provision for a child, and said that this would be based on the nature and extent of the provisions they make as a matter of course in their ordinary schools for children with special educational needs, on the geography of the area, the distribution of population et cetera. In the case in question—the child moving from another area—the needs have not changed. As the Minister said, again at col. 550, the main factors in deciding whether to make a statement must be the needs of the child.
I absolutely agree that the needs of the child are of paramount importance. Yet, from the Minister's explanation, it would appear that at the end of the day the determining factor as to whether a statement is made on a child is the educational provision available in his area. I very much hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is not so. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very happy to try and clear up any misunderstandings that there may be on this part of Schedule 1. It might be helpful if I explain again the circumstances in which a local education authority will cease to maintain a statement. This may happen if the child goes to live outside the area of the authority which made the statement. In that case the child ceases to be the responsibility of that authority and the statement ceases to have any effect because the original authority will no longer be responsible for the child's education. If the child has moved into the area of another local education authority, which is the most likely circumstance, then the original authority may pass on his records, but there will be power under paragraph 4 to make regulations about this and it will be for the new authority to decide whether to make the statement.
Secondly, the statement will lapse if the child is over 16 and leaves school. Thirdly, the authority may change its mind about the child. That may be as a result of the annual review or as a result of a request

913
by the parents for a reassessment. But before that happens, the authority must, under paragraph 6 of Schedule I inform the parents of their intention and give them the opportunity to make representations.
I do not believe that we need to have regulations about discontinuance: in two instances this will be automatic and in the other instance there is provision made for it in the Bill. I hope that I have met the concern of the noble Baroness about this part of the schedule. However, once again, if on reflection she finds that there are further points I would be very happy to write to her.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her reply, but I am extremely disappointed in it: it is exactly what I had feared. I only asked about the first circumstance in which a statement would be discontinued if a child moved to another area. The noble Baroness has given me the same explanation of those circumstances as she did in Committee. It appears to me that the special educational provisions existing in ordinary schools in the area is the determining factor as regards what will be the special educational provision for the child. It is very gloomy, because it only goes to show how necessary were all our amendments on planning, ensuring access, special educational provision in ordinary schools and reporting on progress. Having probed and found what I think is lacking in the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1981
Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1981
Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1981
Supplementary Benefit Up-rating Regulations 1981
Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1981
Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations
1.16 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th July be approved.
Lord Cullenof Ashbourne said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but am I right in thinking that we are also discussing the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Yes, my Lords. These instruments are being debated in another place today. First, I should like to make the point that very large sums of money are involved in social security. This year expenditure is running at over £27,000 million a year. These up-rating instruments between them raise expenditure on social security benefits by over £2,000 million in a full year. Half of this goes on increased retirement pension which goes up for a single person from £27·15 to £29·60; and for a married couple from £43·45 to £47·35.
I know that many of your Lordships are particularly interested in benefits for the disabled and I should like to mention particularly that benefits specifically provided for sickness or disability are increased by over £250 million a year. For example, the higher rate of attendance allowance goes up from £21·65 to £23·65. Mobility allowance is being increased from £14.50 to £16·50 a week—an increase of nearly 14 per cent. It is particularly appropriate in this International Year of Disabled People that we can give this extra help to people with severe mobility problems. This means that a severely disabled person who gets maximum invalidity benefit, including invalidity allowance which we are restoring to the full normal level, plus higher rate attendance allowance and mobility allowance gets £80·56 a week. Ten years ago he would have got only sickness benefit. Thus the main thrust of extra expenditure covered by these orders and regulations is in the direction of elderly people and those who are sick or disabled. But substantial sums of extra money are also being found for families with children, widows, and unemployed people.
Your Lordships may recall that, under Section 1 of the Social Security Act 1981, the up-rating order must increase the rates of benefit to the sums which the Secretary of State announced in his up-rating statement at the time of the Budget. As your Lordships will recall, the main increases are based on the Chancellor's forecast of a 10 per cent. increase in prices between November 1980 and November 1981. There have been suggestions in some quarters that in view of the movement of prices between November and now the 10 per cent. forecast may turn out to be an underestimate.
While readily acknowledging that economic forecasting is an inexact science I should like to make two main points. First, as experience last year showed very clearly the rate of inflation in the early part of a year is not necessarily a reliable guide to what will happen later in the year. This time last year the doubting Thomases were predicting a 20 per cent. inflation rate against our earlier forecast of 16½ per cent. In the event prices moved only 15½ per cent. over

915
the year. Secondly, if in the event the forecast should prove to be too low, the Government will take appropriate action to honour the pledge which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear on several occasions, to price protect pensions and other long-term benefits over the life of this Parliament. This means making good any shortfall for these beneficiaries at the next up-rating.
This brings me to another aspect of this year's up-rating which has been the subject of some controversy. Although the main increases are based on the 10 per cent. forecast, the actual increases are rather less than that because of the adjustment we have made to take account of last year's over-estimate. Your Lordships will be aware that provision for this adjustment was made in the Social Security Act 1981, which was recently approved by your Lordships' House.
This provision has been fully discussed already during the passage of the Act and I do not propose to go over the same ground again now. However, there has been considerable misunderstanding about what we are doing, so I want to make it quite clear that pensioners and others are still getting price protection over the two-year period. The increases they received last year were higher than was necessary to keep their benefits in line with inflation. All we are doing now is going back to what last year's benefit rates should have been before adding on this year's increases. We wish it was not necessary to do this, but the 25p difference for the individual pensioner means for social security expenditure as a whole some £200 million. We wish we could allow pensioners to keep the extra beyond what is necessary to price-protect their benefit, but the economic situation makes this impossible. I repeat that, over the two years taken together, pensions will be protected against price rises. This is in full accord with our pledge to price-protect pensions over the lifetime of this Parliament and is the most the country can afford at present.
The Supplementary Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1981 provide for the supplementary benefit scale rates to be increased on the same basis as that applying to the contributory benefits. For example, the supplementary allowance for a single person living alone is going up from £21·30 to £23·25 a week. The long-term scale rates are, of course, aligned with the main retirement pension rates. Subsidiary additions to supplementary benefit will be increased by appropriate amounts, generally in line with the movement of relevant components of the Retail Price Index. Heating additions will rise by between 18 and 19 per cent. in line with the likely movement of the RPI fuel component over the 12 months to next November. This should protect the substantial advance made last year when we boosted these additions by considerably more than the rise in fuel prices. These particular regulations add £230 million a year to public expenditure.
Your Lordships' House will have taken note of the 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which drew special attention to this instrument on the grounds that elucidation is required of the basis used to determine the up-rating of the various amounts specified in the regulations. The detailed elucidation is provided in a memorandum by the department which is printed as Appendix II to the Joint Committee's Report, copies of which are available
916
in the Printed Paper Office. Also before your Lordships today are draft regulations to extend entitlement to the higher long-term rate of supplementary benefit to unemployed people aged 60 and over who have been on supplementary benefit for a year or more, and choose not to register for work. The change will take effect from 23rd November 1981.
It has long been recognised on both sides of the House that there is a case for extending entitlement to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed in general, but the cost of doing so would be greater than we can afford at present. These proposals are, however, a step in the right direction. They offer older claimants who qualify for the long-term rate the opportunity to withdraw from the job market and, in effect, to retire early. There are many men aged between 60 and 65 who would welcome this. Moreover, it is men in this age group in particular who find it especially difficult to get a new job and the step we have taken will spare them this disheartening task.
The proposals permit those who wish to register for work to do so, but they will continue to receive the ordinary rate of supplementary benefit. Claimants will be able to count periods in receipt of supplementary benefit since their 59th birthday towards entitlement to the long-term rate, subject to the normal linking provisions. I hope, therefore that the House will endorse these measures, which will mean up to £9·60 per week more for a married couple, and up to £6·35 more for a single person.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention briefly to the Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations. Again, the increases are as my right honourable friend announced at the time of the Budget. Child benefit will go up by 50p from £4·75 to £5·25 per child per week and one-parent benefit by 30p from £3·00 to £3·30 per family per week. These increases cost £280 million net in a full year and bring the annual total expenditure on child benefit to nearly £3,500 million. They fully protect the November 1980 value of the benefits and fulfil the commitment given by my right honourable friend last year that, subject to economic and other circumstances, the Government would maintain the real value of child benefit. One-parent benefit has in fact increased by 65 per cent. since we came to office—well ahead of inflation.
At this point, I should also mention the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations. Their terms are, I believe, quite straightforward and their effect is to raise the prescribed levels of income for FIS by £7·00 to £74·00 weekly for one-child families and to raise the additional amount for each further child to £8·00 a week. The maximum amount for one-child families will go up to £18·50 weekly, and this will be increased by £1·50 for each further child. Following the increases in real value last year, these levels will maintain the crucial role of FIS as a benefit designed specifically to support low-income families in work. I should perhaps emphasise that for these families the increases in FIS will be on top of the increases in child benefit and one-parent benefit, because, as your Lordships will know, these benefits are not taken into account in assessing income for FIS purposes.

917
Finally, I come to the order which provides for the payment of this year's Christmas bonus to pensioners and others. As in previous years, the bonus will be £10—not as much as we might wish, perhaps, but nevertheless an addition to the regular benefits which, as recent research by OPCS has shown, is much appreciated by those who receive it.
Naturally there is a wish to do more to help the less fortunate members of our society, but these instruments provide evidence of the Government's determination to protect the interests of those most in need at a very difficult time. Within the limits of available resources, this is the most we can do. I am confident that your Lordships will accept the instruments now before you. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft order laid before the House on 6th July be approved; and
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th July be approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, I had the impression of some benevolent gentleman throwing pound notes away by the million. In point of fact, the story is entirely different. I entirely agree, of course, that these orders should be the subject of one debate. With possibly one exception, they are the administrative instruments of social security legislation which has passed through both Houses of Parliament in spite of severe criticism and the now familiar pattern of the Government's rigid attitude in not accepting amendments.
It is true that at times we have had some sympathetic noises from Government Ministers. We have also heard ad nauseam the phrase, "when economic circumstances permit". Sympathetic noises and vague promises are no consolation to the unemployed, the sick, the disabled and the deprived, who are the real sufferers under the Government's monetary policy.
In the main it is not my intention to deal with each order specifically. They are uprating orders based on a Treasury forecast, as the noble Lord has said, of 10 per cent. inflation, although forecasts that have emerged since June indicate a possible rate of inflation of 10·5 per cent to 12 per cent., with the Daily Telegraph forecast of inflation edging upwards in the last three months of the year to 12 per cent. or even 13 per cent.
Of course, in point of fact the up-rating orders are not 10 per cent., they are reduced to 9 per cent. because of the clawback of 1 per cent. imposed due to miscalculation last year. So in fact it is a reduced up-rating. We have argued considerably about this ad infinitum, without result. Social security beneficiaries just have to pay for Government miscalculation. What concerns many people now is what is going to
918
happen if inflation in fact exceeds 10 per cent. later this year If that is the case there will be a shortfall in benefits. Will the Government make good such shortfalls with the same speed and decision as they decided on the 1 per cent. clawback?
The Secretary of State for Social Services in a letter to my right honourable friend Mr. David Ennals quoted in The Times of 20th June, stated:
"If, and I underline if, the uprating proves to be too low because inflation has continued at a higher rate than had been anticipated, then the promise of price protection carries with it the promise that the resulting shortfall will be made good next time round".
That on the surface sounds all right, but in fact the promise of price protection refers only to "long-term" social security benefits. It does not cover child benefits, unemployment, sickness, injury and maternity benefit, or indeed the ordinary rate of supplementary benefit. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, in your Lordships' House gave a similar undertaking to that given by the Secretary of State, but she said—and I quote from Hansard of 16th June at col. 543:
"As regards short-term benefits the Government's view is that if the situation arose the position could be properly considered only in the light of the amount of the shortfall and"—
and here it comes again—
"of the economic circumstances of the time".
The repetition of "the economic circumstances of the time" is becoming a monotonous stock phrase for Government Ministers. Will the Government come clean and give a clear undertaking that if the shortfall arises in both long- and short-term benefits then it will be made good? The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, made some indication of benefits being made good, and I understand from reading the tape that in another place Mr. Rossi, the Minister, made yet another pledge, but does this apply to all benefits, long and short term?
So far as the Christmas bonus of £10 is concerned, I suppose one should be grateful for small mercies, but we must not overlook the fact that it has remained at £10 a long time and its purchasing power has dropped considerably since first instituted. Nevertheless—and here I declare an interest from the point of view of a little spending money for Christmas for a poverty stricken Lord—I give the order a muted welcome. So far as supplementary benefits are concerned, there is a considerable variation in the range of increases varying from 6 per cent. to 19 per cent. It would be interesting to learn the Government's reasons for this extremely wide variation.
With reference to the limit of £2,000 capital for supplementary benefit purposes, although we have debated this the question still remains why, with the continuing fall in the purchasing power of money, have the Government failed to make an obvious and necessary adjustment? In spite of what the noble Lord said, child support is generally negligible. Total child support for each child in a family on unemployment, sickness, injury or maternity benefit, will rise by only 5p in November. For a child whose parent is on invalidity or widow's benefit it will rise by 70p. Whatever the Government will say the real value of child benefit will still be 40p less than when the Government took office. Do the Government really believe

919
that the present level of child benefit is adequate? I cannot believe that they do. Will they give now a commitment to improve it even if they have to use that well-worn stock phrase, "if economic circumstances permit"?
With reference to unemployment benefit and the 5 per cent. abatement, or cut, what hopes are there for the real value of unemployment benefit being restored once it is brought into tax next year, for remember that in November next the abatement effect is a cut of £1 for a single person and £1·65 for a couple based on real value? There exists a bitter resentment over invalidity benefit. For some 400,000 it is their only source of income, and the tax issue does not affect them, and yet they still suffer a cut of 5 per cent. There is real injustice here that cries out to be remedied. We have debated this, but I wonder whether the Government will take earlier action on reflection.
So far as the order extending the long-term supplementary benefit rate to unemployed men aged 60 or over, this is of course welcome. I welcome that unreservedly so far as the men over 60 are concerned. But it is a pity that the Government did not take the opportunity of extending their order to cover all unemployed claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit for over a year. The Government accept the case in principle—I concede that; that is admitted—but as expected state "this is not yet the time". Financially it is possible to do it now from savings on the anti-fraud drive and the increased revenue from taxation on benefits for the unemployed. Can the Minister say whether contribution credit rights will be preserved for those who cease to register availability or incapacity to work as a result of claiming benefit under this order? Contribution credits are vital so far as pension rights are concerned. I am not at all clear on the position, despite the statements that have been issued. Could the Government make a statement on this matter today?
My Lords—and here I approach a conclusion—we are on the very brink of a Summer Recess, and this is rather obvious in this Chamber. I am sure that noble Lords are sick and weary of the effects of the last minute spasms of legislative indigestion that we have had to endure. Even so, when we return some weeks earlier than another place, the long weary process will resume for a while. But, who knows, the Government may change their policy and restore to the unemployed, the sick and the disabled, that which they have taken away. After all, as we all know, even Scrooge changed his mind. Will the Government do so? On reflection, I suppose that that is supreme optimism. Like Oliver Twist I ask for more, but somehow or other, knowing this Government as I do, I do not expect to get it. On the other hand, as another place has passed the orders, in the tradition of this House we shall offer no opposition to them, and I offer the Minister my good wishes for a happy Recess.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for his explanation of the contents of these orders. This is the seventh consecutive year that I have had the pleasure of commenting to the House on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, and,
920
as the proposed increases are announced, as Lord Cullen said, the day before the Budget, we have always had a long time to consider them and comment on them before the order appeared. This year has been no exception and in addition we have dealt with the whole question of up-rating when discussing the Social Security Bill.
In the debate on the Social Security Bill, my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock and I were concerned with the possibility that there might be a shortfall, a possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred—that the Government's estimate of inflation this year might not be correct. We felt that the Government's estimate of 10 per cent. might not be enough and that their clawback from that, of 1 per cent., to recoup the over-estimate the year before might be not only undesirable in itself hut premature. My noble friend has asked me to say that he would have liked to have been present to press the point again today had he not had an engagement which prevents him from doing so.
What he and I sought to do when we were discussing the Social Security Bill was to ensure that, if there were a shortfall, it would be made good not only for long-term benefits but for short-term benefits as well. But in that we were unsuccessful and, since the fall in the value of the pound, economic commentators have cast some doubts, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, on the target of 10 per cent. being met and, as he said, there have been suggestions of anything from 10½ per cent. to 12 per cent. as a possible rate.
They may he very pessimistic and that may not happen. But, if the rate of inflation were to be 12 per cent., the loss to a single person on unemployment and sickness benefit would be 40p per week and to a married couple 65p per week, plus 5p for each child. I am underlining the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when I ask whether the Government in such circumstances intend that that loss should be sustained permanently by those on short-term benefits, with the cumulative consequences which would follow in future years. As Lord Wallace pointed out, we have already had a drop in the real value of these benefits through the 5 per cent. abatement last year, and I reinforce his question to the Government in asking the Minister whether the Government will restore the abatement for all benefits affected when they are brought into tax.
Looking at the Government Actuary's Report on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, we see that the new estimate for 1981–82 shows a deficit of £619 million, compared with an estimate last November of a surplus of £39 million. That is almost entirely accounted for by the increasing numbers of unemployed and by a more realistic assumption in the calculations with regard to them. The present rates of contribution are clearly enough at the moment to meet the cost of pensions, which are far and away the largest single item—in fact, the estimate for pension expenditure has been revised downwards very slightly—but the cost of unemployment benefit is now one-sixth of the cost of pensions. The estimated deficit to which I have referred is very small compared with the reserve in the National Insurance Fund. If a reduction in unemployment could confidently be predicted in the next year or two, the deficit for 1981–82 could, in

921
my view, be disregarded, but, if unemployment is to remain at about its present level into the foreseeable future, then some further small increase upwards in contributions will no doubt be necessary eventually.
In the Social Security (Contributions) Act last winter, the Government increased personal national insurance contributions, but only part of that increase was to meet unemployment; part went to the health service and part to allow the Government to reduce the Treasury supplement. Had the Government not reduced the Treasury supplement, the fund would have been better placed today to meet the cost of unemployment without further increase in contributions, because it should be borne in mind that unemployment reduces the revenue as well as increasing the cost of benefits.
Coming to the Child Benefit (Up-Rating) Regulations, much has been said about the fact that the increase proposed, though it aims to match inflation over the past year, does not make good the decline in the value of child benefit since the present Government took office there is still a shortfall there, and we on these Benches endorse that criticism.
As for the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order, we note that this benefit is to be paid again at the rate of £10. No allowance is made each year for inflation; the value of this benefit therefore becomes less and less. Is it the Government's intention to phase it out altogether? We on these Benches take the view that if a particular benefit is worth including in the range of benefits which the Government provide, its value should be maintained unless and until Parliament decides that the value should be reduced or the benefit abolished.
We welcome the increase in family income supplement, although we look forward to the day when FIS, in view of its implications for the poverty trap, will be replaced by a tax credit system such as I have commended to your Lordships on many previous occasions. The object of that, in addition to the basic family income supplement, would be to take large numbers off supplementary benefit. While the cost of national insurance benefits to the unemployed is increasing, as we have seen, the recent report of the Social Services Committee in another place nevertheless underlines the fact that, while supplementary benefits accounted for 46 per cent. of benefit expenditure on the unemployed in 1975–76, that figure had increased to 53 per cent. by 1979–80 and is expected to reach 63 per cent. by 1983–84. In other words, 63 per cent. of' the benefits paid to the unemployed will be paid by means of supplementary benefit. Supplementary benefit was never designed for such a task, and a complete overhaul of the social security system is clearly needed. In the meantime, however, from these Benches we shall offer no opposition to the orders which have been presented today.
1.49 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I was a little alarmed when my noble friend Lord Wallace said we were on the brink of the Summer Recess, which rather suggested that we were on the edge of a volcano or something similar. We are in fact on the eve of the Summer Recess, and I hope it will be a tolerable one. I told the Minister yesterday, when he asked me whether
922
I intended to take part in the debate, that I did not intend to do so, but as on many occasions when noble Lords come into the Chamber to listen, there is a temptation to speak. This is a curious occasion, in that we are approving regulations that are made under legislation previously discussed at length, and passed, so that this is really, so to speak, the routine end of the process. Nevertheless, when we take the regulations en bloc, as we have done this afternoon, we have one of those rare occasions when we can look broadly at the whole perspective of social security, and in these circumstances I think that one looks at it in a new light. This is not the time to go into some of the broad problems of philosophy, and of the structure and financing of our social security system, but I have been connected with it in Opposition and in Government, and in Parliament generally, for so long that I cannot but form opinions about it as time goes by.
My first contact with social security was in broadcasting on the Beveridge Report—and indeed before that. I should imagine that if Beveridge were alive today, he would think that our social security system is far and away more generous than ever he thought it would be. He laid down principles which were the product of pre-war thinking about bare subsistence levels and the relief of poverty, and even on that basis, low enough as it was, we could not wait to get the benefits which the scheme contemplated. So we rushed into it and laid the foundations of our present social security scheme, without the possibility of realising what a vast charge upon the nation's resources it would become. In more recent years I have questioned whether the working population could bear the increasing weight of the dependency factor in society; and this is another thought which troubles me as time goes by.
Something else which I cannot get rid of is the feeling I have long had, especially on the Labour side of politics, that we are really in search of an acceptable means test, and we have been all along. I do not think that we have one even now, more acceptable though it is than that of earlier days. When I look at the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations and turn, for example, to the clothing allowances, I see how much is allotted for a blouse for a woman, a cap for a man, trousers, and all the other clothing, including underclothing. It is given in detail: jumpers, nightdresses, pantie-girdles, petticoats, pyjamas, raincoats, shoes, and so on and so forth. One really wonders whether this is the way to do it.
But of course it replaces much of the discretionary element that there used to be in supplementary benefit in earlier days. I well remember that in another place we used to say that the discretionary benefits under the supplementary benefits scheme occupied far too large a proportion of the total allowances granted for them to be satisfactory. That was because the benefits were at the discretion of officials. Then there was a desire to get hold of the book of instructions given to the officials, to see what were their directions. Since they had to exercise discretion, we wondered what advice they received on how to do it. So it went on. And then it was thought that it was better to bring it out in the open and have catalogues, classifications, prices and so forth.

923
These are random thoughts which came to mind as I sat listening to the debate on the regulations. What a mistake the Christmas bonus was, for instance. I was in the Government at the time, and I remember how the Christmas bonus arose from internal pressures in the Labour Party. It had nothing whatever to do with public demand at that particular moment. Our difficulty was that we were pledged to a very substantial up-rating of the social security benefits, and we encountered administrative difficulties in having the new benefits in payment before Christmas. The Parliamentary Labour Party thought that administrative difficulties must be overcome, that nothing should be impossible, and in 1964–65 every effort was made to try to find a computer that might do the job more quickly.
Well, we could not find one. So we decided to introduce the Christmas bonus, but it was highly discriminatory when we did. It was to be for those people who were really deserving, those on supplementary benefit, and the chronic sick. Well! I recall the sacks of mail that arrived at the Department of Social Security from outraged pensioners who were not on social security, or supplementary benefit, as we then called it. In many cases what they thought of those who were on supplementary benefit was far from complimentary, and we realised that we had made a serious mistake in discriminating between one section of recipients and another.
Then there was the question of removing that discrimination. Rather than have a debate on the matter every year, we said, "Let's make it permanent". But when it was made permanent and each year regulations were introduced to deal with it, the amount remained the same. So, naturally, there is pressure over the question of how much longer should the Christmas bonus go on being eroded before there is some kind of explosion that calls for a catching-up process, which would prboably lead to it being doubled or trebled at some time. After all, Christmas is Christmas. One must keep up. But one wonders whether this is a justifiable feature of a social security and national insurance system.
Another thought occurred to me while the Minister was speaking. In his concluding remarks he referred to the regulations as providing additional benefits to the less fortunate members of our society. Of course, that is not a true description of all the people who fall within the regulations. The national insurance scheme is not all the time necessarily dealing with the less fortunate members of our society. I declare my own interest: I am myself a retirement pensioner. I do not count myself among the less fortunate members of our society, and there are a great many other people to whom the national insurance pension is a form of occupational pension and has nothing to do with how fortunate they may be in society. An increasing number of people are on two pensions. We must not overlook that. There are vocational pensions and the national insurance pension.
The less fortunate members of society are those without jobs, the sick, the disabled, and those whose resources are so small that they must have supplementary benefits. It is that fact that makes for some difficulty in presenting the whole of the social security system as if it were comprehensively dealing with
924
people who are less fortunate than others. That is not wholly true, and it seems to me that the time has come when we must look in a different way at the various sections of the community.
I greatly regretted that the negative income tax system never came to anything. We worked very hard on it in a Select Committee in another place. One of the main reasons why the scheme failed was that the evidence we received in the Select Committee represented a vote of censure on the fathers of Britain. Mothers were not prepared to have child allowances channelled to them through the taxation system which applied to their husbands. So long before the Select Committee had really started on its task, Ministers had to hurry in order to assure the mothers of England that they would have the prescriptive right to whatever benefits were applicable to the children.
The other thing was that the scheme was presented as being costly in terms of revenue foregone and benefits paid, with an undue proportion of the benefits in the scheme going to the better off because they were getting the benefit of it through the tax system. I think the presentation was largely responsible for that misunderstanding, coupled with a certain amount of political bias against it. There are times when the Opposition do not like to see the Government succeed. I leave it at that. So we did not get that provision but I think that one day we will come around to getting something of that kind. That is enough said at this time of day and at this juncture in the Session, but I will probably return to some of these ideas on another occasion.
I should like to conclude by saying that I believe the time is coming when we have to do some new and unorthodox things about social security. I believe we have got into a groove over social security, but with changes in society and in economic conditions, a new look at much of what we are doing to fortify the resources of those who lack having all they need will become imperative. With those few remarks I can only sign off by saying that, since we are on the brink of the Recess, I will not now trouble your Lordships further.
2.2 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, before the Minister replies I should like to ask him one or two questions. I listened with great care to all the facts and figures which the Minister rolled out so beautifully. While I partially understood them, it is very difficult for someone like me who lives in a rural area to explain to people in a slightly aged population how these benefits are made up. It would be of great help to everyone if the Minister's department could produce in an understandable form the points which he has made. It is very difficult to explain them to people.
Secondly, people are very worried about the speed with which a pension can be adjusted under certain circumstances—especially people in rural areas. These people feel the rising costs very quickly. One instance is the rise in the price of petrol, which has nothing to do with Government policy but is purely due to the oil companies. That increase affects the man who has no bus service for collecting his pension and has to use his car; the cost of his doing so rises instantly. And when he travels to the shops, or when a mobile

925
shop calls in his area, that increase is passed on instantly in the form of higher prices. It is difficult to explain to people what they can do about this. The speed at which these up-ratings are considered is an essential factor.
I now return to the question of the Christmas bonus. We should ask the Government whether they consider it is worth going on with this or whether they consider it should be continued but upgraded in value. This bonus started off as a nice dish of roast beef but has ended up as something like a cat's dinner. It is difficult to explain why the Government go on year after year keeping the bonus at the same level when there has been such a decrease in the value of money. I wonder if my noble friend will ask his department to consider bringing this bonus up to date or doing away with it.
2.5 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate for the information which I have extracted from their speeches. I always find that I learn a good deal when debating this subject. I always learn a lot from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and today I have learnt also from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I must start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, who not surprisingly complained about the frequent references to our lack of resources, that we cannot live in isolation in this world. There is a world recession. It would be nice to do all sorts of things which the noble Lord would regard as being more generous. It would certainly be very much easier for me to stand here and to be able to announce all sorts of delightful increases in benefits rather than simply up-rating them on the basis of inflation.
I have been asked quite a number of questions to which I will try to reply. If I do not reply to them all perhaps I might be permitted to write to noble Lords accordingly. The question that was asked of me by many noble Lords concerned the shortfall, particularly as it applies to short-term benefits. Your Lordships' House is well aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has pledged that long-term benefits will be price protected. I should like, particularly on the eve of the Recess, to be able to send the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Wallace of Coslany, away with a joyful heart by saying that we could make the same pledge on short-term benefits, but I am afraid we cannot do that. It will have to be looked at in the light of the amount of the shortfall and the circumstances at the time. Hopefully, one day we will have more resources and be able to take a different view of these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the variation in supplementary benefit rates. The main supplementary benefit rates are being increased on the same basis as the main national insurance benefit rates. Subsidiary increases for various special expenses have, broadly speaking, been increased in line with relevant components of the retail price index. For example, dietary additions have been increased in line with the movement of the food component of the index—an increase of 8 to 9 per cent. Heating additions have been increased in line with the forecast rise in the fuel component of the index over the 12 months to
926
next November—l9 per cent. Those are two examples.
The noble Lord asked me an important question about the entitlement to national insurance credits. In reply, I would say that it is not the intention that this change in the supplementary benefit rules should have any effect on a person's entitlement to any national insurance benefit. For most people the benefit at issue is retirement pension, and credits will continue to be available for this purpose. This may require an amendment to regulations to ensure that receipt of supplementary benefit at the long-term rate in these circumstances can be counted for credit purposes.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about the abatement being made good in benefits when they come into tax. As far as unemployment benefit is concerned, this will be considered in the context of the annual review of public expenditure decisions in the normal way, and the same applies to sickness benefits. As to invalidity benefit, on the other hand, we are pledged to restore the value when it comes into tax, and this is an unqualified pledge. It will not now be possible to bring invalidity benefit into tax in 1982, as we had hoped. However, because we are anxious to make a start towards the restoration of the value of this benefit we are proposing to restore from next November the value of the invalidity allowances paid on top of the invalidity pension.
Regarding entitlement to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for all the unemployed, the Government are well aware of the case for this change but, like our predecessors, we have not been able to go the whole way. The cost of making this available to all unemployed would have been well over £100 million. Incidentally, had we reduced the figure from 60 to 55 that would have cost £40 million. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the national insurance fund deficit, and suggested that it might be necessary to raise contributions in the future. That indeed is possible, my Lords, but I think it is much too early to speculate on this.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for many of the things that he said, and I will certainly pass on to my right honourable friend his suggestion that the whole social security system should be reviewed. I feel that I shall be telling him something which he knows well already; and I think it is very difficult to make any major changes at a time when (with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace) resources are very short. It is very much easier to carry out those changes when there is a little more in the kitty. I fully understood what my noble friend Lord de Clifford said about rural areas; and I also agree with him that the situation about the Christmas bonus, to which all noble Lords referred, of going on and on year after year at £10, is not satisfactory, but at the moment I am afraid the Government see no possibility of increasing it.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Films (Quota) Order 1981
2.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 30th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: In some respects the issue that we have before us today is a technical one, and I hope the House may agree that I should delay them slightly and explain, first, what the quota relates to; secondly, some of the history of the quota; and, thirdly, how the system operates in practice.
Since 1927, and subject to provisions for exemption and relief, exhibitors of standard 35mm films have been required to show British films for a percentage of their total playing time. For what are called first feature films, the percentage relates to the number of days on which films are exhibited in the cinema, and for supporting films the percentages relate to the showing time of such films. The provisions were extended to include Community films when the United Kingdom entered the European Community in 1973.
Over the years, the level at which the quota has been set has varied considerably. For example, for what are now known as first feature films the percentage in 1938 was a mere 12½ per cent; for the early 1940s it was raised to 15 per cent; and in 1948 it went up to 45 per cent. In 1949 there was a reduction, first of all to 40 per cent., and in 1950 to 30 per cent., and it has remained at that level ever since.
The order that we are debating this afternoon would take the figure back to the earlier level of 15 per cent. Not surprisingly, there are conflicting views within the cinema and film industry as to the merits of this particular system. For it to operate, it is necessary for each cinema in the country to keep a quota record book in which full details are entered week by week of the films being shown at the cinema, and their playing time. At the end of each year those books are duly certified, and they are then forwarded to my department where they are checked for accuracy and for the achievement or non-achievement of the quota.
The relevant Act of 1960 provides penalties for exhibitors who do not meet the quota requirements or who fail to make the appropriate returns. As your Lordships will see, I have here an example of the annual returns for one cinema in a distant part of England, and it has some fascinating entries in it. I also have here a book with the blank forms that have to be filled in by the representatives of exhibitors in cinemas throughout the United Kingdom.
There does exist a system of consideration of cases before any failures to achieve the quota are prosecuted, and as a result of those procedures, since 1956—which is quite a long time ago—there have been no prosecutions, although there have been extensive numbers of failures to meet the quota. For example, in 1980, which is the latest year for which we have records, about 22 per cent. of all cinemas failed to reach the quota levels. This absence of prosecution is largely due to the fact that the relevant Act provides that it should be a satisfactory defence of failure to achieve quota if the exhibitor can show that it was not commercially practicable to comply with the requirements.
This point, and the long absence of any prosecution, are quite relevant when considering the level at which the required quota achievement should be set. As some Members of your Lordships' House may know, the Films Act 1980 deliberately introduced provision for the Secretary of State for Trade to make an order completely suspending the quota arrangements. That
928
provision was introduced in recognition of the difficulties to which the quota arrangements give rise, and earlier this year we had in mind that particular provision. My right honourable friends sought advice from the Cinematograph Films Council and various representative bodies in the cinema and film industry as to whether such a suspension should be introduced. I have to tell your Lordships that the Cinematograph Films Council was, as a majority, in favour of a suspension, as were organisations representing cinema exhibitors. The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. They requested a further memorandum on these consultations with the Cinematograph Films Council.
On the other hand, the organisations which represent the film producers and the unions for people who work in the film-making industry were against suspension. Thus, we can see that there is a strong conflict of views within the entire industry as to the appropriate course of action which should be taken by the Government. These considerations need to be undertaken against a total background where we have a steadily declining number of people who go to the cinema, a steadily reducing number of cinemas in operation and a falling percentage of films which qualify as quota films being made.
Over the past 10 years—if we can take one example—the number of British first feature quota films registered as such has reduced from 90 to 41, and the percentage that such films represent of all first feature films registered has reduced from 23 per cent. to 16 per cent. The situation is even more striking when we consider British films currently in production and thus those which will be available for meeting quota requirements with effect from January 1982. That is the period to which this order relates. There is every indication that British quota films registered in 1982 will be fewer than half those registered during the current quota period and there could be fewer than 20 quota films in all. There is thus a very serious danger that, if the quota requirement is maintained at its present level, virtually every cinema in the country would be in danger of failing to meet these particular requirements.
Having regard to all these considerations, it is our view that the right course is to aim for a compromise between the present situation and the concept of total suspension. I would therefore commend to your Lordships the proposal that the figure should be set at 15 per cent. both for first feature films and for supporting films. This matter will of course be kept under review and the situation will be monitored very carefully. If and when my right honourable friends are satisfied that the quota might reasonably and fairly be reviewed with a view to an increased figure, then of course we shall have no hesitation in taking such a step. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 30th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
2.23 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for so fully explaining the purpose of this particular order. As the noble Lord said, there is a considerable division of opinion within the industry as to whether the action

929
proposed by the Minister is the right course of action. As the noble Lord said, the Cinematograph Films Council were in favour of an experimental suspension of the quota. Organisations representing film producers and the unions were all against the suspension of the order. Basically, it is a situation where those who make films are against a suspension or reduction of the quota while those who show films are for a suspension or reduction of the quota. This has necessarily meant that the Minister has had to make her own decision on what to do. She has taken the decision, as the noble Lord told us, to halve the quota for first feature films from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent.
I must question whether this "judgment of Solomon" by the Minister is the right one. Certainly the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments which considered this order last Tuesday, 28th July, was almost equally divided about the proposed order, with seven members of the committee voting in favour and six against. One member would seem to have abstained. I think we must question whether this decision is the best for the British film industry. There is undoubtedly a very real anxiety in the production side of the industry about the whole welfare of the industry. I submit that it is not only a question of quota but it is a psychological matter as much as anything. If a quota exists, the attention of exhibitors is drawn to the importance of maintaining the British film industry. There is a danger that if you reduce the quota to a level below the average level of current fulfilment, the exhibitors will tend to "trade down" to the quota; that is, the maximum becomes the minimum.
Our primary concern must be to protect British involvement in film-making. The protection afforded by the quota was undermined in 1973 when, as the noble Lord reminded us, the quota was extended to include EEC films, and of course as each new member joins the EEC that quota is even further diluted. Indeed, the effect of halving the quota must be considerably greater than it appears on the surface, because of this. Added to that, there is a further devaluation in the effect of the quota because, as many large cinemas have been divided into smaller ones, an individual exhibitor is able to count towards his quota the same number of points for a film shown in the smallest mini-cinema in his group of individual cinemas within a total cinema, even though that mini-cinema may seat only 10 people, as against a film shown in another part of the same building where there may be 500 or more seats in the auditorium. That has added a further devaluation to the value of the quota, and then on top of that the Government are proposing to halve a devalued quota.
My Lords, this is not good enough. If the Minister feels the quota is unreasonably high she should have reduced it to an attainable level. By imposing a low quota, she is inviting further trading down. I am also concerned about the position of independent exhibitors who cannot get access at reasonable cost to popular and profitable British films. This action of the Government will not help them in any way. The order seems to be positively harmful to the needs of film producers and to offer no solace to the needs of
930
independent exhibitors. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what the Government are intending to do to help the British film industry.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, introduced this Motion in such reasonable terms that one might have cause to wonder why it was that this order caused such an uproar when it was debated in another place. I think it is rather unusual for the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments to be the scene of such furious debate as occurred when this was debated in another place and for the Motion to have gone to a Division which, as my noble friend pointed out, was a pretty close-run thing. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves why it is that a matter which has been put before us as a reasonable and proper thing to do should have caused such dissension elsewhere when it was examined.
There are a number of reasons for this, and some have been touched on by my noble friend who has just spoken. There is a fundamental division in the British film industry, as between the makers of films and the presenters of films; as between the producers and the distributors and exhibitors. The interests of the exhibitors have always been geared to the idea of showing any film. They have always resented the idea of there being any British quota at all. They want freedom, which is understandable from their point of view. They do not want to have to fill up forms and so on, and want to be free to show whatever film they wish to show without any restriction whatever. On the other hand, the producers want an assurance that there will be a native British film industry.
Governments of various complexions have, over the years, always taken the view that it is in the interests of this country to preserve our own British film industry, so that in this area we have something to say to the world. It might reasonably be argued that, whereas the film was at one time a major world influence, it is less so today. That is not entirely true, because there is a considerable cross-current between film and television, and the impact of television throughout the world is very considerable. But it is true that the cinema film has been in decline for a number of years, particularly in this country, which is partly due to the excellence of our own television programmes; people are not forced out of their house if they want to see a decent film. Quite often—though not on every evening—they can see something worth looking at on one of the three television channels.
This division in the industry was reflected in the advice tendered to the Minister, because, as I understand it, what happened was that there were two meetings of the Cinematograph Films Council, which advises on these matters. On one occasion, the exhibitors were in the majority and they advised the abolition of the quota. On the next occasion, there was a full representation of the production side of the industry and they advised that the quota should remain as it is at present. So the Minister was faced with conflicting advice. As my noble friend said, she took the judgment of Solomon on it and, in this case, decided to kill the baby. Instead of deciding that she would choose this one or that one, as Solomon wisely did, she slashed it down the middle. There is a grave danger that this will have the effect of killing the baby.

931
One must consider what happened in 1980. It has been said that 22 per cent. of cinemas failed to reach their quota, but of course 78 per cent. of cinemas reached their quota. Therefore, there seems to me to be precious little case, in a situation where last year 78 per cent. of cinemas reached a 30 per cent. quota, for saying that this year the quota is to be halved. This is an extremely pessimistic view of the possibilities of the British film industry and it is a view which is not shared in the production industry.
The production industry feels that by taking this action the Government have—as Alan Sapper, the Secretary of the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians, said—slapped the production industry in the face. There are grounds for believing this, because the Minister has estimated that in one year's time an industry which got fairly close to the 30 per cent. quota will be accommodated by a 15 per cent. quota. That is an unreasonably pessimistic estimate of an industry which is again beginning to exhibit that artistic excellence which has characterised the British film industry. A number of films, including "Chariots of Fire" and "Gregory's Girl", are meeting with great critical acclaim. I believe that, with a reasonable degree of encouragement from the Government, the British film industry would be capable of a resurgence. That is why there was such anger in another place. Another reason is that the Minister for Consumer Affairs who presented the matter in the other place was somewhat more abrasive than the noble Lord opposite in her presentation of the argument. I do not think that this helped. I would not, however, wish to place the whole of the blame upon the Minister. She is, after all, the Minister for Consumer Affairs. As the Minister for Consumer Affairs she is naturally orientated towards the distribution and exhibition side of the industry rather than towards the production side of the industry.
This illustrates something which is fundamentally wrong, and has been wrong for many years, in the approach of successive Governments towards the film industry. We have here a Minister who deals with the film industry as one of a number of other responsibilities spreading over a very wide field. Instead of that, the film industry ought to come under the control of the Minister for the Arts. I was inhibited from saying that very forcefully and very openly when I was Minister for the Arts, because I should have been accused of empire-building. However, it is a very sensible proposal, which I commend to the Government. At the moment, responsibility for the film industry is divided. The Minister for the Arts is responsible for the British Film Institute. Therefore the art film comes under the Minister for the Arts—an artificial division from the commercial film, which, as we have seen, is the responsibility of the Minister for Consumer Affairs. However, television, which is now very closely associated with the film industry, comes under the Home Office. So we have the extraordinary situation of three different Ministers and three different departments who are responsible for different aspects of the same industry.
I do not believe that we shall get a rational and reasonable approach to the problems of the film industry until we mend that situation and have one Minister who is responsible for television, radio and
932
both areas of the film industry—the art film and the commercial film. Until we get that approach, we shall not have a Minister who is able to spend enough time upon bringing the various parts of the industry into a coherent whole and who is able to persuade them that if they want to save the British film industry they must work together and be able to deliver to the Minister coherent advice upon which he can act. If they do that, it is my belief that there will be a considerable future for the British film industry. There is not such a future for it in the proposal to reduce the quota to 15 per cent. I believe that the anger which this has aroused is justified.
I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord say that the Government will be prepared to look again at the quota if they find that problems arise from it. The difficulty about the 15 per cent. quota is that it discourages the production industry and encourages the producers to say that there is no need for a quota. In other words, it has in itself a depressing effect. A 15 per cent. quota might bring about the very thing which a 15 per cent. quota envisages. I am therefore very worried about it.
When the Minister replies, as I think he will in a moment, I hope he will be able to say that the Government regard this as an experiment, undertaken possibly as a result of conflicting advice, and that they will be prepared to look at it again pretty rapidly if they find that the consequences are those which I have indicated and which I fear.
2.40 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister will forgive me if I intervene for one moment to say that I believe there is a great deal to be said for what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was saying. However, there is some doubt in my mind as to whether or not he was proposing a Ministry for all visual media, and I think that is a very important point; whether he was actually arguing in favour of a Minister of telecommunications, et cetera. If so, I think that is a dangerous thing and I hope the Government will not follow any such pattern.
On the other hand, this co-ordination could be done with a little goodwill, but one of the great difficulties with which the film industry is faced, and indeed has been faced with over many years, and one of the disincentives to investment in this industry I regret to say is largely due to the activities of the ACTT in the industry and the great dis-economies which their regulations have imposed upon the industry.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think we should be grateful for the interest and indeed for the comments which have been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Jenkins and Lord Annan. The latter's weighty presence brings a tremendous depth and breadth of experience to one side of the entertainments industry. I hesitate to say video industry, but this is beginning to have an interesting connotation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised a number of points and of course he is absolutely correct in pointing out that there were a number of divisions of opinion as to whether the action which we propose in the order is correct. The Government feel that, on

933
balance, the action that we are taking is the correct one in the light of the conditions which we have experienced and indeed in the light of the opinions which have been expressed to my right honourable friend. My right honourable friend the Minister will be interested to hear of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as to the judgment of Solomon. I shall convey the noble Lords' opinion about killing the baby to the Minister, who I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, believed was a trifle more hurried or more in the traditions of another place rather than of the conduct of deliberations here.
I think the House will agree that the decisions which had to be taken were something akin to the decision which had to be taken by King Solomon those many years ago, and we believe that the Government have made a reasonable attempt at taking the correct decision. Of course, at the conclusion of my speech I pointed out that the Government would be prepared to review this action in the future if we felt that there was a strong case for the conditions to be changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the very serious problems of the British film industry and particularly of those who are involved in producing films. Of course, the Government want to see a healthy British film industry but the Government are of the opinion that the best way to provide help, particularly financial help, to the industry is to see how the Eady levy (which is appropriately and quaintly named after its founder and is the industry's own money) could be extended to search for any ways in which more private venture capital could be encouraged into the industry and into making more British, and indeed quota, films on the basis of commercial judgments.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out that there were many very good and enjoyable and commercially successful British films. But of course this brings us to the main division in opinion in the British film industry—the whole industry, not just those making films. We come to the problems of the distributors. Of course, one man's meat may be another man's poison. Alas, it is the distributors who have to be persuaded that a film is commercial.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of the Eady levy, could he say, if he has the figures to hand, how much that levy is producing for the film industry now as compared with, say, 20 years ago?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I regret that I do not have the precise figures to hand. I know that the levy is at the moment in funds to the tune of approximately £6 million, but I am afraid I do not have what I would call the ebb and flow, the income and expenditure of the levy. If the noble Lord would allow me to inquire, I shall certainly let him know as soon as may be during the Recess.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so kind as to allow me to press him on one point with regard to this? He spoke about the question of choice in relation to films. Will he agree that the
934
fact that the exhibition work is largely in the hands of what is called the "duopoly" is responsible for the fact that the independent British producer has great difficulty in getting a proper outlet for his films?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with his enormous experience, is in part correct, but I think that he will know that there are other problems apart from what he called the duopoly. He is in part correct; I would agree with him to that limited extent.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me one more question about what could be done to help the British film industry, above all the makers of British films, to encourage them in their efforts. Very favourable tax considerations have been given, certainly in the last Budget, and in the Finance Bill this year. First of all, there is tax relief for loss on investment which might be made by an individual. That is in the 1980 Finance Act. That is aimed at, among other things, the British film industry and individuals who would wish to invest in commercial ventures, such as making films which may not be immediately of commercial attraction. There are also the business start-up schemes. There is indeed a change of practice, which has been introduced since August 1979, which permits the immediate write-off of all expenditure against current trading profits of film production companies on any expenditure incurred in producing films. This is, we hope, reasonable encouragement on the financial side to the British film industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, used the word "pessimism". Well, surely a good British film would not necessarily be shown just because of the quota. I think this was suggested earlier. If a good British film has commercial potential certainly it will be shown regardless of quota. The distributive side of the industry, and indeed the entire industry, would agree that there is an overall shortage of good commercially attractive films from anywhere in the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked me about films and particularly about films which might be shown on television. I understand that around four times as many films are shown on television as in the cinema during an average year. So that shows that television is a very important medium. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, would be interested in that set of statistics and the importance of the television industry as far as the film industry, both British and worldwide, is concerned. I am entitled to say to your Lordships that further consideration certainly will be given to the arguments that have been advanced to my department that exhibitors of films on television of whatever form should, or might one day, make payments into the Eady Fund for the levy. That is a hypothesis, but certainly the Government would keep an open mind were the matter to be raised.
I have a figure here which the winged messengers have brought to me which will certainly be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Twenty years ago, in 1960 the Eady Levy Fund stood at £3·9 million; as of 1980 it stands at £6·1 million. I understand that the Eady levy may stand at any point between £2 million and £12 million. So it seems that at its current level, this levy fund has the power to do some

935
good and to assist the film-making industry—indeed, all aspects of the industry. Of course, how the money is spent is a matter that must be agreed by the industry itself.
The question of divided responsibility has been raised. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned the Minister for Consumer Affairs. It was questioned whether it should be the Minister for the Arts. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, raised one or two questions on this matter. However, I must say to all three noble Lords that the allocation of ministerial responsibilities is and will continue to be the prerogative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Many of us—and especially myself speaking from this Dispatch Box this afternoon—see the force of many of the arguments. We think it would be more to the point to take action to ensure that the advice given by the industry to Ministers is much more widely based than at present. Indeed, my right honourable friends in various departments are taking that matter into consideration at present.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also raised a query as regards further help to the film industry and I hope that I can give him some assistance on that matter. In fact, the note which I have refers to television and I have already covered that matter. The question was raised of consumer affairs and why should the film industry come under the aegis of the Minister for Consumer Affairs. The curent concentration by exhibitors is on a very narrow sector of the populace. I understand that the vast majority of filmgoers are between the ages of 14 and 24. I do not know exactly why that should be so. I, and no doubt other Members of your Lordships' House, may well have our opinions as to what is carried on in cinemas apart from viewing the film, eating popcorn and expressing one's opinion. However, that statistic is confirmed by the exhibitors and so it appears that the Minister for Consumer Affairs would have legitimate interest in this narrow band of 14 to 24 year olds.
From what I have gleaned from the comments of various noble Lords, I think that I have covered most of the points that have been raised by the three noble Lords who have been kind enough to take part in our deliberations. I shall read carefully what has been said this afternoon, and if I have missed any points I shall write to noble Lords. I certainly promise to write to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Southwark London Borough Council) Order 1981
2.55 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 11th June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should perhaps mention at this stage that there is a misprint on some copies of the Order Paper, and that the date should be 11th June, rather than 11th July. With the leave of the House, at the same time as moving this order I should like to speak to the London Docklands Development
936
Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Newham London Borough Council) Order 1981.
On 1st July the House approved orders setting up the London Docklands Development Corporation vesting in it certain lands owned by the Greater London Council and the Port of London Authority. In the debate on the orders, it was explained that further orders had been laid affecting some 142 acres of land belonging to Southwark Borough Council and some 87 acres owned by Newham Council. It is those two orders that we are concerned with today.
The two vesting orders before us today were laid in June and were open to petitions for a period of 14 days. No petitions were received against the Southwark order. One petition, by Newham Borough Council, was received against the Newham order.
In their petition, Newham argued that the vesting order would deprive the borough of potential sites for public sector and/or mid-tenure housing; that the inclusion of all or part of the sites of the proposed local centres would prejudice the timely provision of the community facilities envisaged; and that the inclusion of statutory allotments would deprive allotment-holders of their statutory rights while leaving Newham with the commitment to relocate them.
The Secretary of State pointed out that the question of the availability of housing land had been considered during the lengthy proceedings on the Designation Order; that Newham had been given assurances that the land required for community facilities in the local centres would be made available when needed; and that the LDDC had already acquired certain sites from the Port of London Authority for the relocation of allotment-holders and had offered the sites to Newham for statutory allotments.
Newham Borough Council's petition and my right honourable friend's department's representations were considered by the Hybrid Instruments Committee in another place. They took the view that, so far as the land for housing and allotments was concerned, that matter had already been sufficiently dealt with by the Select Committee. The committee also felt that there was no substantial ground of complaint concerning the land required for community facilities within the local centres. They concluded that no further inquiry into any of these points was required.
I commend these orders to the House, so that the London Docklands Development Corporation may take possession of the sites and make them available for early development.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 11th June be approved.—(The Earl of Avon.)
2.59 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the orders and for the information which he has given the House. He will not be surprised if I remind him and the House that when the previous LDDC order last came before your Lordships' House on 1st July, to which the Minister has made reference, my noble friend Lady Birk expressed some misgivings on it and notified the House of several aspects of concern not only to the Opposition but to local authorities, to the petitioners and others. Probably the main area

937
of objection concerned the principle of what is an undemocratic and appointed urban development council arbitrarily imposed on the existing local government structure.
It is with that kind of background that one will look at these orders today, and with the fears which were discussed on that occasion. We feel that it is essential in the circumstances of the background to the founding of the LDDC to be sensitive to the relationships and the responsibilities which are involved. The London Dockland Development Corporation is now a reality and we all hope that some of the fears expressed earlier will not be realised. Much depends on the membership of the LDDC and its officers, and we hope that the membership of the corporation, when it is finally appointed, will reflect the interests of the local authorities and the other bodies concerned. This of course is most important.
As my noble friend Lady Birk said in the debate on 1st July there could well be problems of relationships and administration between the democratic and the non-elected bodies, but this can be eased if people not only act with consultation but also through engendering a sense of involvement by all the authorities concerned. I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions regarding these particular vesting orders, of which he has given us some details, as they affect the two local authorities whose land is being vested—namely, Newham and Southwark councils—and which of course have been subject to a petition by Newham, to which he has made reference and on which I should like his further comments. It appears that, although Newham made very strong representations through a petition to the Hybrid Select Committee, the Newham Council are still not satisfied that they have had a fair hearing. At least, that is the impression I have got.
Will the Minister say what consultations have taken place with the councils about the proposals which involve the disposal of land earmarked for development and other purposes? I think he mentioned housing in particular and also allotments; but of course if land is given up to another authority by a local authority which has in mind its own development for housing and its present statutory duties to allotment holders, this can create problems for the local authority concerned. Can the House be told whether the intended use by the LDDC has been seen in the light of the possibility that the land in question might be more speedily developed for the same purposes by the local authorities concerned? I am sure that we want to make sure that the land is developed and used by the authority most likely to administer it in the best way.
Further, is the Minister aware that the vesting of the land could reduce the area of land in the Beckton area of Newham which might be available for other housing purposes? Has there been any attempt to reach agreement as to the use to which the land is being put? Reading the petition which was presented one gets the impression that there has not been the degree of co-operation which might have been thought desirable in that situation. In putting forward the vesting orders at this stage, can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State is using what might be called his "last resort" powers under Section 141 of
938
the Local Government Planning and Land Act before other means of achieving the same objective have been considered?
I noticed in the petition by the Newham Borough Council to the Hybrid Instruments Committee that there is a reference which says:
"Your Petitioners are astonished at the allegation that the Petition discloses no ground of complaint, and are much disturbed that the pugnacious attitude adopted by the Secretary of State will hamper the establishment of a working relationship between the development corporation and your Petitioners. The Secretary of State proposes by the vesting order to force your Petitioners to surrender their property to the corporation, and now by his representations seeks to prevent your Petitioners from presenting reasoned arguments to the contrary. He does not appear to understand the sense of anxiety your Petitioners seek to express in their petitions, which if your Right Honourable Committee were to so recommend, could be argued before a Select Committee".
I am not concerned particularly about the relationships between the authorities concerned here but the role of the Minister himself, which is of course a very important factor. I believe that in the short period of time in which the LDDC has been operating there has of course been a great deal of co-ordination and co-operation between him and the local authorities, otherwise of course the detailed plots referred to in the orders could not have been so specified.
In view of the misgivings which we, as Her Majesty's Opposition, have had and the fears of local authorities and other bodies, I feel sure the Minister will agree, and so will the LDDC, that it is absolutely vital to be sensitive to the relationships between the bodies concerned in carrying out the functions which will achieve the objectives in which we all have a mutual interest. I feel sure that the LDDC will be as anxious as anyone that there is full consultation on the way ahead and also that there is avoidance of duplication of functions which might be better carried out by the local authority, whose know-how and local experience in an area over many years is so valuable.
Recognising that only when such orders come before your Lordships' House do we really have an opportunity to ask about the progress being made and the plans for the future, may I ask the Minister to comment on possible future vesting and other orders which might be coming before the House and on which we anticipate there will be adequate consultation? We have to accept, and we do, that the LDDC is a reality, and I have no cause for feeling there should be any complaint at the moment about any lack of co-ordination and co-operation, but I am sure that all those concerned will recognise how important that is, and I hope too that the Minister, in keeping his eye on the way things proceed, will also be sensitive to the feelings of those involved.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I recognise of course that noble Lords opposite have some doubts about the scheme, and I hope that the few remarks I shall now make will allay some of them. The Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 enables the urban development corporations to acquire land compulsorily and, in the case of publicly-owned land, by means of a vesting order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, and there is nothing about jumping the gun or changing the timing in the production of these orders at the present time.

939
The principal purpose of the latter provision is to enable UDCs to have enough land at the outset for their own early projects and to prepare a range of sites for private development. Accordingly, during the "shadow period", the London Docklands Development Corporation discussed the likely demand for land with the present owners, transport and planning authorities, financial institutions and private sector agencies such as volume house-builders. The corporation put forward proposals for the early acquisition of some 840 acres of publicly-owned land.
As I mentioned, orders vesting about 280 acres of PLA land and 15 acres of GLC land have already been approved. Two more orders vesting land belonging to Tower Hamlets and further GLC land have also been laid and will come before us on another occasion. The LDDC are also negotiating the purchase of land from the British Gas Corporation, British Rail and the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Government's case for the orders is that, to be effective, the London Docklands Development Corporation needs to own a substantial amount of vacant or under-used land on which it can carry out any necessary preliminary work and then release it for development. That is a key component of the Government's strategy.
In my opening remarks I mentioned the three points which are really the major points in the petition by Newham—amenities, allotment sites and housing—and I thought that with the help of the Select Committee, those three issues had more or less been ironed out. The noble Lord mentioned housing in the Beckton area. Newham still have land available for over 1,000 dwellings in the Beckton area, even after this particular bit of land has been vested.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, also mentioned consultation. As was mentioned when we discussed the Mersey orders, Section 1(40) of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 requires that the London Docklands Development Corporation prepare a code of practice as to consultation with local authorities concerned with its area. Discussions have already taken place between the Chief Executive designate of the corporation and the chief officers of the GLC and the borough councils. The LDDC will produce a formal code well within the 12 months allowed by the legislation.
The LDDC fully recognises its obligation to inform and to consult local people, organisations and firms. The shadow corporation has publicly stated that, first, the success of the LDDC depends in part on mobilising the involvement and support of the communities, voluntary groups, and personal skills which exist in Docklands. Secondly, on major issues and plans a full public consultation exercise is an essential, otherwise the emphasis would be on encouraging and providing the opportunities for involvement, which is something more than consultation. Thirdly, the LDDC proposes to establish a direct and constant relationship with the Docklands Forum, individual community groups, resource centres, trade councils, firms, the London Chamber of Commerce, and voluntary organisations in the community field, especially the councils for voluntary service.
Although the boroughs have vigorously opposed the setting up of the LDDC, they have, however, co-operated generously with the shadow LDDC. Indeed,
940
they were prepared to appoint the chief executive designate as acting managing director of the executive arm of the Docklands Development Organisation. We have no reason to suppose that the boroughs will not continue to co-operate with the LDDC, if it is set up, and there are many welcome signs that they will accept Parliament's decision, if made, and will participate fully in the work of the corporation.
I should like to remove any doubts that there might be on the financial provisions. For 1981–82 the Government allocated £65 million for expenditure by the LDDC, that is at out-turn prices. More resources are available, if required, to cover the costs of acquiring land from the PLA, the BGC, and other statutory undertakers. These funds are available in addition to other resources which the Government have made available in the area, for example, through the urban programme.
The noble Lord referred to the board appointments. As he is aware, some of the appointments have already been made, and some others are expected to be announced shortly. I cannot in any way prejudge the appointments to be announced. The appointments of Mr. Nigel Broackes, Mr. Bob Mellish, and Mr. Reg Ward as chairman, deputy chairman and chief executive with a place on the board have already been announced and I think broadly welcomed.
I hope that what I have said in these brief remarks will have allayed some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and I am delighted that we should have as the final business on the day that we rise for the Recess matters as important as these two orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Newham London Borough Council) Order 1981
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 11th June be approved.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before I move the adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess, I should like as is customary to say a few words. If I were to thank noble Lords in the two Opposition parties and on the Cross-Benches for their forbearance over what has been a very gruelling Session indeed, we might be misunderstood down the corridor. Political differences we do have in this House, but I think that the objective, and even friendly, way in which we discuss and examine the issues of the day in this House plays no small part in the democracy of the country.
On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I should like to thank noble Lords in other parts of the House for the way in which they have taken the business, which has been fairly hard in a number of respects this Session. I should like to wish them all a very happy Recess. On behalf of all of the House, I should like to wish all of the staff, in all parts of the House, who have looked after us so well, a very well deserved rest indeed, and to convey very many thanks from all of us.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his good wishes for the Recess, and certainly I wish to associate those of us on this side of the House with his wish that the staff shall have a restful Recess.
While reciprocating the noble Lord's remarks, perhaps I can express a forlorn hope—one which I know has been expressed on many occasions in the past—that we might not be worked quite so hard in the next Session; that the Government might be able so to order its business that it will spread more evenly throughout the year; and that we do not have to rush unduly the pace of business at this time of the year.
I believe that all of us on this side of the House have tried to keep up with the pace of Government business, albeit that it has meant sitting four nights a week, on many occasions up to eleven o'clock and beyond. With those remarks, we would wish Members of the Government Benches a happy and restful Recess, and we only regret that we have to come back as early as 6th October.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I be permitted to recall the elderly gentleman in Manchester who once put a notice in the personal column of the Guardian which simply stated that he wished to thank all of his friends who had written to him on the occasion of his recent very severe heart attack and he hoped to reciprocate in the very near future. Without any such personal or political implication, may the Liberal Peers reciprocate the good wishes which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with thanks for those slightly two-sided remarks, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments to be printed.