Lords Sitting of 6 December 1988

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

Salmonella in Eggs and Poultry
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to safeguard the production of poultry and eggs in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to current concerns about infection of eggs by salmonella species. We must keep this problem in perspective. The number of outbreaks in 1988 is very small in relation to the number of eggs which are eaten every day. Nevertheless, I know that the poultry industry accepts its responsibility to consumers to reduce to an absolute minimum the number of salmonella organisms present in or on food. This task is being tackled energetically by the industry in co-operation with the government departments involved.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that she is aware that the retailer/producer does not have to be licensed at present. I believe that that is in line with Common Market legislation so that people with a few hens producing a few eggs are not involved. There is substantial activity in this country under that heading, with such people producing perhaps 1,000 turkeys for Christmas dinner or 100 eggs a day. What do the Government propose to do about the unlicensed retailers/producers?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, under the zoonoses order salmonella isolates have to be reported to the state veterinary service, which is doing excellent work in investigating every salmonella enteritidis incident and advising the producer concerned how he can best deal with the incidents on his farm. Representatives of MAFF and industry have drawn up a voluntary code of practice for poultry health scheme members for the control of salmonella in breeding flocks. That code will be distributed today. We have urged the industry's leaders to ensure that its members act on this matter without delay.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the chance of catching a salmonella infection from eggs has been put in the range of 1:200 million or 1:300 million? Does she recall that when we had a debate in the House on agricultural research and development on 10th November she said that there was no intention to cut funding for work related to
476
food safety and particularly with regard to salmonella in poultry? Will she be good enough to reconcile that statement with the fact that the unit at the Institute for Food Research in Bristol, which is nearest to finding a system to prevent salmonella in eggs and poultry, is to be shut next March as a result of government cuts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's question, about 9 billion eggs a year are consumed. There have been 46 reported outbreaks of salmonella; 46 reports are 46 too many. However, I still say that we should keep the matter in perspective. With regard to research, MAFF commissions over £1 million of research each year into the microbiological safety of food, including salmonella. I have a great deal more information about which I can write to the noble Lord should he wish. With regard to the closure of the salmonella project at Bristol, it has been decided that the work on the manipulation of microbial flora of the gut of young chickens should cease from April 1989 as the work is at the stage where it is ready for the industry to develop. A commercial company has expressed interest in taking that work further. Government financial support for the work will not be lost; it will be diverted to other important microbiological research. The redeployment of the staff involved is being considered by their employers; namely, the AFRC.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be better if the Government stopped eating their eggs curried!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is safe for my noble and learned friend to eat eggs provided they are properly cooked—no matter what recipe he uses.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in the matter of advice to the public on food safety, although I recognise that the primary responsibility rests with the Department of Health, does not the noble Baroness agree that her ministry has a major interest as well? Does not some of the confusion which arises from time to time, not merely about salmonella and eggs but about other commodities, stem from the fact that the liaison between the Department of Health and her ministry is perhaps not as close as it might be? As a consequence, when statements are made by one ministry, they may not have the same degree of emphasis as statements made by another ministry.
To guard against this in future and in order to help both the consumer and the producer, will the noble Baroness invite both her Minister and the Secretary of State for Health to consider the possibility of making joint statements in the names of both Ministers whenever food safety is involved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wish to assure the noble Lord that my ministry and the Department of Health are working extremely closely together. The Parliamentary Secretary of MAFF was sitting beside the Secretary of State for Health yesterday in the House of Commons in order to reinforce that fact. I have every confidence that the two

477
departments will continue to work hand in glove on this matter.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Government have been cutting back their financial contribution to poultry products research? The Bristol Poultry Breeders' Association has made them aware of that fact. We are very concerned. The industry expressed its concern to the ministry and said that the quality of poultry and poultry products would suffer. Has this not happened? Therefore are not Her Majesty's Government partly responsible for the rise in salmonella poisoning in this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must tell your Lordships that work on salmonella and chickens and eggs generally is strategic research and will continue.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware, and will she not confirm, that the whole story has been blown up out of all proportion by her colleague, Mrs. Edwina Currie? What I want to know is what the heck we are going to do with a woman like that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought of various cute replies to the noble Lord's question, but I think I shall duck this one!
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, on Channel 4 last night it was stated that an ingredient of chicken feed is dead chicken. Is that true? Does the Minister think that that is desirable or right? Also, since producers of free-range eggs are not licensed, is she satisfied that a great many producers of free-range eggs feed their chickens with uncooked domestic kitchen scraps which may be hatching the salmonella?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to chickens being fed bits of chicken, the recycling of animal protein in the protein processing plants is covered by the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Orders. The rendering involved utilises high temperatures which will kill salmonella organisms.
With regard to salmonella entering the eggs in the poultry production chain via feed in general, which would cover the noble Lady's other point, it is possible that home produced or imported feedstuffs can be contaminated with salmonella. Producers should demand that feedstuffs should be prepared in a way which minimises the risks of salmonella contamination. There are various orders which require that protein derived from animals and intended for inclusion in the feedstuffs should be free of salmonella.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in her initial reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, the noble Baroness said that this problem was being tackled energetically. Can she tell the House precisely what that means? By whom is it being tackled energetically and what action is being taken?
478
In relation to another part of the noble Lord's question, can the noble Baroness say how many unlicensed hatcheries there are in this country and whether the Government propose to give them authority to sell chicks as before?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the last part of the noble Lord's question, representatives of the egg industry and MAFF have produced a preliminary draft code of practice for egg producers. It is hoped to finalise the code later this week. The MAFF veterinary investigation service will initiate a winter advisory campaign for the control of salmonellosis by commercial poultry and egg producers, and that includes producers who are not members of the poultry health scheme.
We are carrying out a whole lot of scientific studies; we have produced a code of practice. It will he highly advisable that egg producers should follow the code of practice in their own interests. We shall be taking whatever other steps are necessary in the light of circumstances as they are revealed. Our veterinary service is doing a splendid job whenever a case is reported to it, as is the Public Health Laboratory in the Department of Health.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in order to complete the statistical picture before we leave the subject, is the Minister able to say from figures in the Government's possession how many people in this country were struck by meteorites last year?
Baroness Trumpington: Well, my Lords, I know that I am meant to answer for the Government, but off the top of my head, none.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Baroness has described the relationship between the two relevant ministries as a hand in glove relationship. Is that appropriate in the circumstances?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is better than a chicken and egg situation.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, how will the code of guidance that the Minister mentioned be monitored?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I understand it, codes of practice in themselves cannot be enforced in court. But if one of our inspectors found that a producer was acting against the code of practice that, as I understand it, could be brought into evidence in a court case.
Lord Somers: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether any scientific tests have been carried out to prove that there is a greater source of danger from battery produced eggs than from free range eggs?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.

Broadcasting: Legislation
2.52 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to bring forward legislation in the current session concerning broadcasting.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. But we intend to bring forward major broadcasting legislation in the course of this Parliament.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people thought that legislation was going to come in this Session? However, the delay has some advantage in that viewers will have an opportunity of seeing whether or not satellite television is worthwhile. But the delay has a more serious effect on the many small companies which had gathered money and talent in hoping to have a community licence. Can anything be done to allow some of those community licences to be granted and to avoid having to wait until next year for legislation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend says that there are many people who thought that legislation would be introduced in this Parliament. I would say to him that that is one of the dangers inherent in any form of speculation. With regard to his second point, my right honourable friend announced on 2nd November the approval of the IBA scheme for 20 community radio stations. So something is being achieved in this area at the moment, but it will be better when there is legislation.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I hope the Minister can help me and explain why the Government changed their mind about bringing forward a separate radio Bill during this Parliament, but not of course this Session. Is not the Minister aware that the White Paper is swamped by television, and that only two pages out of 45 are devoted to radio? Something like 30 million people a day get great pleasure out of listening to the radio. Should not the Government think again about separating the radio issue? All the concentration, discussion and criticism have fastened on television with very little mention of radio.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that question is an interesting one. Had she listened, as I am sure she does, to the words of wisdom of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, she would have heard that he thought there was already too much legislation this Session. It is for that reason that it was decided that the chances are when legislation is produced, if it is produced—I shall not say whether it will be produced, or when—it might include the subjects in which the noble Baroness is interested.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if my words were words of wisdom, why do the Government not observe them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was the noble Baroness who I thought should absorb the words of wisdom of her noble friend.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in case the Minister has misunderstood my question, perhaps I should say that I had in mind in the end two smaller Bills rather than one very large Bill. The same amount of legislation would be involved.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Baroness has ever tried putting water through two two-inch pipes or one four-inch pipe, she will know that the one four-inch pipe contains more water.

The Mappa Mundi
2.58 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to retain the Mappa Mundi in Britain.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yesterday in another place my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts expressed his concern and his wish that a solution involving both the private and public sectors be achieved which would be acceptable to all the interested parties. He wishes me to reaffirm his belief that it should be possible to find such a solution, one that will keep the map in Britain, and he will be working with all the parties to that end.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. But does she not agree that it is a flagrant breach of trust to offer a map, which is part of the national heritage in general and that of Hereford in particular, for sale at public auction? Will the Government act swiftly in this matter by raising the money in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, to make sure that the sale does not take place? In the long run is not the solution to this problem to recognise that our cathedrals are national treasures which should be supported by the nation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is still early days. Time is needed to work out a solution to this whole problem. On the question of treating cathedrals as a national responsibility, your Lordships will recall that it was in response to the Churches' own preference in 1977 to give priority to parish churches, but to exclude cathedrals from the Government's general programme of church repair grants. But if the Church of England now feels that circumstances have changed so radically that the present policy is out of date, English Heritage will be happy to talk to it. But I should warn your Lordships that such a change might lead to a reordering of priorities within the historic churches repair grants budget.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that he would welcome the Government reviewing with the Church the relations between Church and state so that important ecclesiastical treasures throughout the country can get the support of the central Exchequer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the same answer that I have just given applies to this question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, should not the Government avoid being too intrusive in this matter? Surely this is a matter where the Church itself should decide how to dispose of its possessions in order to carry out its obligations to cathedrals and to the Church? If we move along this road, someone will suggest that we nationalise the cathedrals. That is something we do not want.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister in another place stands ready to act as an honest broker in all the discussions which take place between the various bodies which have become involved in this proposed sale. As I said before, there is time to work out a solution because many discussions will be taking place in the near future.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is highly desirable not only that the map should remain in this country, but that it should remain at Hereford with which it has long historical associations, and where it is far more likely to be seen and to arouse interest than if it went into some general collection?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should remind the noble Lord that the map is held by Hereford Cathedral as the custodian of the map, although the cathedral is not the actual owner of the map. If the cathedral can think of other ways of preserving the map—as I hope it will—as part of Hereford's treasures, then naturally it will remain at Hereford.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, if the cathedral is the custodian and not the owner, how is it able to sell the map?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is one of the national treasures. It is my understanding that the strict interpretation is that the cathedral is the custodian of the map.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, every piece of property in this country has an owner of some kind. If Hereford Cathedral chapter is not the owner but the custodian, who in fact is the legal owner of this object?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the nation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to say that I honestly do not know. I took advice from the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, before I entered the Chamber. It was he who informed me that the cathedral was the custodian of the map.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify that point. The point is that the dean and chapter are the custodians of the map in a moral sense. That does not mean that they do not own the map, but it is rather different from merely owning it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is before the General Synod of the Church of England at the moment draft legislation which, if it eventually receives Royal Assent, will make it impossible for a dean and chapter to act unilaterally without obtaining further advice and agreement?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords; I am aware of that fact. That is a matter for the Church authorities. Perhaps I may return to the previous question. Information has now reached me that the dean and chapter own the map.
Baroness Birk: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Baroness Birk: You have already asked a question.
My Lords, in order to keep the map in this country, and recognising that the resources of the National Memorial Heritage Fund and other heritage bodies are not infinite, would the Government be prepared to give a crumb of that contingency fund, from which they were prepared to pay £100 million for the Thyssen collection, in order to solve the future of the map? In the event of an appeal being lauched, would the Government be prepared to encourage that initiative by matching it pound for pound?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that I must go back to the original point. We are still holding discussions with the various bodies involved and it is very much up to the dean to decide whether or not to sell the map. Once those discussions have taken place that kind of question can be examined.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that a few weeks ago very few people in this country knew of the existence of the Mappa Mundi? Will she also agree that after this welcome golden shower of publicity the dean and chapter may be well advised to show enterprise and responsibility by placing the map on public show, charging the public and using the income for the conservation of the cathedral? If they have any doubts about the tourist value, perhaps the dean and chapter will consult the English Tourist Board.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. There must be very good opportunities for marketing such a treasure by putting it on display. However, that is essentially a matter for the dean.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in answering the right reverend Prelate my noble friend said that she knew the Synod was to recommend that a dean and chapter should obtain advice before disposing of articles such as the map. Can she say from whom it is suggested that they should take that advice?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. I think that is a matter for the Church itself.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that what emerges from these exchanges is that Her Majesty's Government have no policy whatsoever towards the future of British cathedrals and their contents, which are national treasures? is she aware that that would be the responsibility of successive governments? Will she convey that to her right honourable friend and make sure that there is a policy which can be defined to the nation within an appreciable time?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord absolutely and fundamentally. However, when I answered an earlier question I pointed out that if the Church of England considers that circumstances have changed since the cathedrals were excluded from the Government's general programme of general church repair grants, etc., English Heritage will be delighted to discuss the matter. Those bodies—English Heritage and National Heritage—were formed in order to do that very work. However, I warned that their purses are not infinite and therefore it could lead to a reordering of priorities within the historic churches repair grants budget.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that what has emerged from these exchanges is a very welcome determination from herself to do everything that she can to save the map for the nation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I am confident that a solution will be found.

Nature Conservancy Council: Report
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report from the Nature Conservancy Council on its review of its holdings and what will be the status of that report.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Nature Conservancy Council expects to submit a report on its review of national nature reserves by the end of the year. It will be a report to the Government. The results of the review will be announced in due course.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he tell the House who will be consulted about the findings of that report? For example, will the conservation bodies be consulted, and who else is likely to be consulted? Can he also tell us what we are to deduce from the fact that even in advance of the publication of the report the Nature Conservancy Council is to experience a cut in its funding for next year? I am aware that there is a £1.2 million increase in the amount of money paid, but £500,000 of that is earmarked for Abernethy and, allowing for inflation, the remaining money represents a cut in real terms of 5 per cent. in the budget. Is there any connection between what may happen as a result of the report and that cut in the council's money?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we shall certainly consult interested parties before any final decisions are taken. With regard to the finance that the Government have put into the Nature Conservancy Council, I think that it is very important to put the matter in perspective. In 1979–80 the amount of money which the Government placed was some £8 million, and next year it will be in excess of £40 million. That is an increase of 150 per cent. in real terms after inflation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister can continue to hide behind 10 year-old statistics. I asked a question about next year's funding. Can he answer that question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, an increase of 150 per cent. in real terms after inflation is a very substantial increase over a decade. I am not avoiding the question. We shall increase expenditure next year, and we have increased it enormously in the past decade.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I apologise, but—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry, but this is a fact and the Minister is avoiding it. There is to be a cut in real terms for next year of 5 per cent. One cannot escape that fact.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have at no point denied that expenditure next year will increase from £38.5 million to just over £40 million. I have reminded the noble Baroness of the very important fact that expenditure in real terms over those 10 years has risen by 150 per cent. and have put the matter into perspective.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister has given an assurance that other conservation bodies will be consulted about the activities of the Nature Conservancy Council. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that other bodies which are affected by the decisions of the Nature Conservancy Council, such as the forestry industry, will be consulted before statements are made on behalf of the council?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I should hope very much that my first supplementary reply, which indicated that we shall consult all interested parties before final decisions are taken, would include forestry interests.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the Minister enlighten the House as to what mandate the Secretary of State for the Environment thinks he has to hand over national nature reserves to non-public bodies except following a revision of scientific opinion as to their scientific value?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that of 234 national nature reserves only 63 are owned outright by the Nature Conservancy Council. The remainder are for the most part owned by private individuals.
Baroness White: My Lords, that does not answer my question in the least. A number of nature reserves are owned by the Nature Conservancy Council. Anyone who has read the report which came out a little over a week ago, under the name of Mr. Wilkinson, who is the very admirable chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, will recognise that the council itself is deeply disturbed at what it understands to be the intention of the Government; namely, to deprive the council of its authority and ownership of such nature reserves as it owns and to hand over those nature reserves to other bodies which would have to finance and manage them. It may be desirable in certain instances—
A noble Lord: Too long!
Baroness White: I am, my Lords, trying to get an answer that really answers the question. What mandate has the Secretary of State for the Environment to hand over public property of that kind to non-public bodies without giving a scientific reason for the basis of his decision?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the review will consider whether any of the reserves owned by the Nature Conservancy Council could be transferred to private owners or voluntary bodies. However, it is very important to remember that the proviso would be that there were adequate safeguards for conservation in those circumstances.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the new director of the council has a permanent appointment?
Lord Hesketh: No, my Lords. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness David: My Lords, following the question—
Baroness White: My Lords, is it not the case that the new director is in fact only seconded from the Department of the Environment?
Baroness David: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lady White, can the Minister say whether it is the policy, or indeed the wish, of the Secretary of State to prevent the Nature Conservancy Council acquiring any new national nature reserves at any time? There is at least one, at Caenlochan—a very important reserve—that is up for sale at the moment. Can the Minister please respond to that question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is certainly not the intention of the department to prevent any further increase in the number of national nature reserves. In fact, one has been created every two weeks since we started. At the moment there is only a temporary hold on new nature reserves. In exceptional circumstances that could be overruled as well if there were important circumstances which required the immediate implementation of such a nature reserve.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Ackner, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Birdwood, L.

Birk, B.

Butterworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Chitnis, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Dainton, L.

David, B.

Davidson, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Falkland, V.

Ferrers, E.

Gallacher, L.

Gibson, L.

Gisborough, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Greenway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Hampton, L.

Havers, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hilihead, L.

Kimball, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. ( L. Chancellor)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Nicol, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Peston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Pym, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sandys, L.

Seebohm, L.

Serota, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

487

Walston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Young, B.

—(The Chairman of Committees.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Ackner, L.

Airedale, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Belstead, L.(L. Privy Seal)

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Caithness, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

David, B.

Denham, L.

Elton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Havers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Jacques, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. (L. Chancellor)

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Renton, L.

Serota, B.

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

—(The Chairman of Committees.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will be acutely aware, as are the Government, of the sharply increased public concern over the care, protection and upbringing of children which has been generated by recent events. We are therefore glad that two major reviews of the law governing children have recently been completed. As a result the legislative response to current and deeply felt worries can be provided in a wide and carefully
488
considered reform of both the public and private law of children and family services.
The Bill in my view represents the most comprehensive and far reaching reform of child law which has come before Parliament in living memory. It brings together the public and private law concerning the care, protection and upbringing of children and the provision of services to them and their families.
Public child care law is a subject of fundamental importance, with two main aspects: first, the responsibility which Parliament gives the executive, mainly the local authority, to intervene in private family life on behalf of the community in order to help the children; and secondly, the court processes for adjudication in respect of such intervention.
Almost a hundred years ago the Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act, 1889 put on a statutory basis for the first time a series of offences against children. During the century since then parts of our present framework have been constructed and developed but usually in a rather uncoordinated way. All those provisions of the main Acts which are still extant are reflected in the Bill with the exception of adoption, which is a specialised subject. Necessarily there will be some Acts concerning children, such as legislation relating to employment of children and specialised disablement provisions, with which we deal by reference, but by far the greater part of statute law will be here in a form which is simpler, more accessible to those who work with it and more comprehensible. I am glad that by this Bill we shall be able to repeal in full no fewer than seven post-war Acts, limit others to purely criminal provisions and others largely to adult provisions.
In the report Children In Care, published in 1984, the Social Services Committee in another place said that there should be a thoroughgoing review of the body of statute law, regulations and judicial decisions relating to children. The Government responded with some speed. The result, only 18 months later, was the Review of Child Care Law. This was a detailed report to Ministers and a consultation document on proposals and options for codification and amendment of child care law. It formed the basis for the well-received White Paper The Law on Child Care and Family Services published in January 1987. Throughout the development of our proposals we have consulted widely with legal, social work, child care and other interests.
The concern of recent years about the present legal framework for children has been fuelled by the tragic and, to many, incomprehensible phenomenon of child abuse. Some 100 children, some of them known to local authority social services departments and some actually in their care, die each year at the hands of a parent, step-parent or connected adult. At any one time about 40,000 children in England alone are on child protection registers. We were shocked too by the events in Cleveland, and helped by the very careful and thorough report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss we must ensure that over-zealous handling of such cases does not recur. But equally the reports on the deaths of Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile,

489
Tyra Henry and others show the importance of ensuring that children at risk are properly protected. This points to the need to have in place a legal framework that gives effective protection to those who are too young and too vulnerable to defend themselves and is also fair to those most affected, particularly parents and others with parental responsibility. This balance has been shown to be missing from child care law at present. We have also failed to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights that the present law in relation to parental access to children in care is satisfactory. The Bill seeks to correct these and other deficiencies of the present law.
We have adopted certain guiding principles for reform of the public law on children. The prime responsibility for the upbringing of children rests with the parents, but in cases of need the state should be ready to help, especially where doing so lessens the risk of family breakdown. Services to families in need of help should be arranged in voluntary partnership with the parents, and the children enabled to continue their relationship with their families where possible. Parents' legal powers and responsibilities for caring for a child should only be transferred to a local authority following a full court hearing and then only where there has been harm or there is risk of harm to the child. Though the interests of the child are the primary concern, parents should be able to be properly represented and should therefore be full parties in court proceedings in addition to the child. Emergency powers to remove a child should be of short duration and subject to court review. Finally, the legal responsibilities of local authorities caring for a child taken away from home should be clear. The powers and responsibilities of parents in these circumstances should also be clear.
So far as the private law is concerned, Parts I and II of the Bill largely implement the proposals of the Law Commission in its Report on Custody and Guardianship which recommends consolidating and amending the existing law in those fields to form a single rationalised regime which meshes with the Government's proposals in the White Paper to produce a consistent code. I should like to pay tribute at the outset not only to the commission's work in producing such clear and desirable reforms in the private law, but also to its help, and in particular that of Professor Hoggett, in analysing and formulating the Government's proposals for reforming the public law. The Bill demonstrates the very real and practical advantages which can flow from government departments and the Law Commission working closely together. And it is my earnest hope that similar co-operation will continue in other areas of the law.
I have dealt at some length with the background to the Bill. It may be helpful if I now go through it briefly and outline some of its main provisions. In Part I we have the keynote proposition of the existing law. It is that the child's welfare should be the paramount consideration when the courts reach decisions about his upbringing. That principle governs not only the making of orders in private cases, such as divorce, but also the court's decision on
490
whether to place a child in the care of a local authority or under its supervision. Clear as the statement of paramountcy is in Clause 1, there is always a danger that such a broad principle can lead to inconsistent practice and even to courts overlooking relevant matters of detail. Accordingly, subsection (2) follows the Law Commission's recommendation and provides a checklist of specific matters to which the court should have regard.
There is one final provision of Clause 1 that I would mention. That is the prohibition in subsection (4) against courts making any order under the Bill unless that would be better for the child than making no order. There is a danger that a child may be put in local authority care because of inadequate home circumstances but without evidence that the order would improve the situation. And in family proceedings the Law Commission noted a tendency to make orders simply as part of the divorce package. This provision aims to discourage both those practices.
Your Lordships will have noted a change of terminology in the Bill. The fundamental concept in this area of law is no longer to be expressed variously in terms of rights, duties, authority or even powers of parents, but simply as "parental responsibility". The phrase, recommended by the Law Commission, is apt to my mind. It emphasises that the days when a child should be regarded as a possession of his parent—indeed when in the past they had a right to his services and to sue on their loss—are now buried forever. The overwhelming purpose of parenthood is the responsibility for caring for and raising the child to be a properly developed adult both physically and morally.
Clauses 2 to 4 generally modernise and restate the incidence of parental responsibility and aspects of its exercise, I hope in much clearer terms. An important change affecting unmarried fathers is included. The Family Law Reform Act 1987 already makes provision enabling the courts to confer full parental status on such fathers and, as the Government have already announced, it is hoped to bring that part of the 1987 Act into force soon. Clause 4 will allow unmarried fathers to have equal parental responsibility by making a formal agreement with the mother without going to court.
The Bill also reproduces the existing law on the appointment of guardians to replace a parent when she or he dies. The only major changes here are that the appointment will simply need to be in writing whereas now it has to be in a deed or will, and that unless the child is living under a court order with the parent who dies the appointment in future will not take effect until both parents are dead.
Part II introduces four new orders. Anyone familiar with the case law or who has read the supplement to the Law Commission's working paper on custody will know how obscure and misunderstood existing orders are. Accordingly under the Bill the courts will cease to make orders which purport to apportion theoretical parental rights and duties and both parents will continue to have parental responsibility. The new orders can thus focus on settling the arrangements about the person

491
with whom the child is to live by making a "residence order". The court is also to have power to make "contact orders" about allowing the child to visit or have contact with a named person. In addition, if there is a dispute about a particular matter—for example, where the child should go to school, or whether he should undergo a serious operation—the court can make a "specific issue order" settling the matter. And finally, the court will be able to prohibit any particular step being taken in respect of a child without the court's permission—a "prohibited steps order".
Those orders will be available in proceedings seeking one or more of them specifically; in other proceedings affecting the family (most notably, divorce); and in care proceedings. Subject to some restrictions, requiring the permission of the court or parents in some circumstances, it will be possible for anyone to apply for one of these new orders. The aim of the restrictions is largely to protect children and families from unwarranted interference. Together with the wide range of orders, these more flexible rights to apply for orders should reduce the need to invoke wardship.
A major concern with litigation about children is delay. In Part II, the Bill states as a general principle that delay is likely to harm children and goes on to give the courts power in private proceedings to draw up timetables and to give directions about the conduct of proceedings. There are similar provisions in Part IV for care and supervision proceedings.
Part III sets out the principal responsibilities of local authorities to children in their area who are in need and their families, and to children whom they look after. It brings together in one statute the main local authority responsibilities to families with children, including those at present set out separately for disabled children. This should help to focus attention on the role of local authorities in supporting the family. Local authorities will have a new duty to promote the upbringing of children in need by their families so far as this is consistent with their welfare duty to the child himself. There are further requirements in Schedule 2 designed to help children in need to continue to live with their families and generally to prevent the breakdown of family relationships. Partnership with parents based on agreement so far as possible will be the guiding principle.
This will also apply where children are provided with accommodation under voluntary arrangements because, for example, the parents are prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care themselves. The present arrangements for reception into care often carry unwarranted association with parental shortcoming. Provision of accommodation in these circumstances should be seen as a service to the family without any stigma. The Bill makes clear the rights of the parents and the responsibilities of the local authority when this particular service is provided. Parents will no longer have to give notice before withdrawing their children from voluntary arrangements, and authorities will no longer be able to assume parental rights over children by
492
administrative resolution. The authority will have to promote contact between the child and his family, consult the child and the family on decisions and establish a procedure with an independent element for considering representations.
Part IV is a major feature of the Bill. It sets out new grounds on which the court will have to be satisfied before making care and supervision orders in any proceedings. These include the likelihood of the child suffering significant harm in the future. This will make it unnecessary for local authorities to continue to turn to wardship in order to avoid the difficulty that a mere anticipation of future harm is not at present a sufficient ground on which to seek an order.
The effect of a care order is that the local authority has parental responsibility for the child. The authority may only deny reasonable contact with the child in care under a court order or in emergencies for a maximum of seven days. Parents and others will be able to apply for an order for contact whether or not, as at present, contact is refused or terminated. Thus restrictions on access will be capable of challenge.
Rules of court will provide for maintenance of the status quo in respect of legal representation of the child. Moreover, the Bill provides that guardians ad litem should be appointed in all care proceedings, including those arising from family proceedings, except where the court considers this unnecessary to protect the interests of the child. It also provides for rules to be made concerning the way in which the guardian ad litem should assist the court. The Secretary of State will by regulations be able to lay down management arrangements and for joint working between authorities to promote more efficient guardian ad litem panels, which will thereby be distanced from the social services departments with which they deal.
I recognise that there will be concern that legal aid is granted swiftly to parties in care proceedings. This will be the responsibility of the Legal Aid Board, which takes up its functions in April next year. Speed will be achieved by waiving the merits tests for those who are automatically parties to the case, granting legal aid in advance of completion of the means tests and by making other special arrangements.
Part V makes major reforms in emergency protection. Here we seek to strike a balance between the need to protect children from harm in emergencies and the need to allow aggrieved parents to challenge action taken in respect of their children—the need for which was graphically illustrated by what happened in Cleveland. There will be a new emergency protection order limited to a maximum of eight days and extendable only once by up to seven more days. There will be a new opportunity for parents to apply for the order to be discharged after 72 hours if they were not present at the initial hearing.
The holder of the emergency protection order will be under a duty to take only such action as is necessary—which could leave the child where he is—and a duty to return him if his continued removal proves to be unnecessary. And the court will have power to give directions on contact and medical

493
examinations at any time an emergency protection order or interim care order is in force.
Part V also allows an emergency order to he enforced by a constable acting under a warrant, as at present, and it will allow the holder of the order to locate other children on the premises who are thought to be at risk. Police powers to take a child into police protection are to be limited to 72 hours and aligned with the other emergency protection powers, as proposed in the White Paper.
Finally, as recommended in the Jasmine Beckford report, local authorities and other agencies will be required to co-operate in support of a more active investigative responsibility placed on social services departments.
I must say a word about wardship. The Government, in line with the Law Commission's decision to postpone making recommendations about wardship, have not sought in this Bill to reform that area of child law as such, although many of the reforms both in the private and public statute law should substantially reduce the need to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. There is one exception, however. The conditions in the Bill which must be satisfied before the state, in the guise of the local authority, can intervene in families by seeking emergency protection, care or supervision orders are carefully designed as the minimum circumstances which can justify such action.
Accordingly, the Bill prevents the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, which is not limited by such conditions, being used to confer compulsory powers on local authorities. It is recognised that in practice the High Court would not be likely to exercise its power in cirumstances where a care order would not he justified under the Bill. However, as a matter of principle it is important for the law in a free society expressly to protect the integrity and independence of families save where there is at least likelihood of significant harm to the child from within the family.
The Bill does not prevent the High Court when hearing a wardship application making a care or supervision order under the Bill where the statutory conditions for such an order are satisfied. And what I will say in a moment about the concurrent jurisdiction will mean that complex or weighty care cases which require the expertise of the High Court will benefit from it under the Bill. Further, local authorities may still invoke wardship for other purposes, provided that there is no alternative statutory procedure and there is an apparent likelihood of substantial harm to the child.
Parts VI and VII replace with amendments existing provisions of the Child Care Act 1980 on local authority community homes, the regulation of voluntary homes and responsibilities to children accommodated in those homes. Parts VIII and IX re-enact, also with some amendments, similar provisions for private children's homes in the Children's Homes Act 1982 and those governing private arrangements for fostering children. We also intend by amendment to revise the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act 1948 to regulate day care facilities provided privately for children under five years of age.
494
The Secretary of State's inspection and other supervisory functions and responsibilities are set out in Part X.
I turn now to Part XI. Clause 66 provides for the abolition of care orders as a disposal for juvenile offenders in criminal proceedings. There has been concern for some time that this disposal represents local authority care as a punishment when it should be seen as the best available way of safeguarding and promoting the child's welfare. In its place the Bill provides that the court can add a residence requirement to supervision orders in appropriate serious cases.
Turning generally to jurisdiction and procedure, I have said elsewhere that their reform in family cases must follow on reform of the substantive law. The logic is simple. It is the substantive law which determines the job which the courts have to do and it must be that law which determines matters of jurisdiction and other arrangements within the courts. If I may say so, this Bill goes one better. In reforming the law relating to children it also provides for the redesign of the court arrangements and procedures to meet the needs of children's cases.
First among the changes in those arrangements is Clause 69, which will create a concurrent jurisdiction in all children's proceedings. Thus, for example, in future an application for a care order will be able to be heard in a magistrates' or county court or in the High Court. And to emphasise the civil nature of those proceedings the Bill by amendment will take power to shift jurisdiction to hear care applications from the magistrates' juvenile court to their domestic court, thus finally obliterating any criminal overtones in those cases. Amendments to the Bill to give rights of appeal to the High Court in care and supervision cases will further emphasise their civil nature.
In addition to concurrent jurisdiction, there will he power under the Bill to require certain types of case to start at a specified level and in a particular court at that level. The intention is to require care applications to begin in magistrates' courts, from where some would be transferred to higher courts.
Secondly, every court having jurisdiction under the Bill will have power to transfer proceedings to another such court if this is more appropriate.
Thirdly, the power to transfer cases will be governed by criteria dealing with the complexity, weight or importance of the case. They will also refer to the need for speed in dealing with cases so that, for example, a magistrates' court which for some reason was unable to give an early hearing could transfer the case to a neighbouring magistrates' court or to a county court if that would speed up disposal.
Together these provisions will create a flexible system under which cases, according to their complexity, can he heard at the appropriate level of court. It will also enable all proceedings affecting a child to be heard in the same court and at the same time by magistrates and judges who are experienced in and who have made a special study of family work.
These powers will be exercised initially in relation to local authority care cases and adoption. The

495
powers will, however, be wide enough to rationalise the hearing arrangements for all children's cases under the Bill if that proves desirable.
The proposed arrangements are novel but we intend that cases moving around the system should do so in accordance with consistent and speedy procedures. Among other things we shall arrange for the courts concerned to produce information about cases in the pipeline, especially care cases, and to make this information available to their opposite numbers in courts to which they might transfer those cases. We shall also devise proper administrative arrangements for transferring cases. The Government intend to underpin the system by empowering the Home Secretary to require magistrates' courts to take the steps which I have described.
Other steps are being taken to deal with care cases. We are exploring what can be done to strengthen links between local courts. We are also considering what central co-ordinating machinery is necessary to promote a consistent judicial approach and to monitor administrative effectiveness.
Noble Lords will appreciate that care proceedings in particular involve a wide range of people with different responsibilities and interests. Uncoordinated, such a system is liable to produce delay, prejudice to the child, confusion and waste. The combination of these measures, together with those which I have already mentioned in relation to the administration of guardians ad litem, aim to create an efficient and effective system of jurisdiction.
Looking to the future, the Government are determined that all litigation concerning the family should be arranged to ensure that the best results are achieved with the available resources.
As this Bill indicates, it is not practicable or desirable to throw over existing machinery wholesale. Rather we intend to approach the problem in ordered stages, linking reform of the jurisdiction and procedure with the continuing review and reform of the substantive law.
With this Bill the Government have put in hand a programme of work which will extend step by step to all aspects of family law and business. We are, for example, looking at the matching of judicial resources to cases, the matching of procedure to substantive law, the organisation and function of welfare services and the appropriate balance between formal adjudication and conciliation.
Your Lordships may recall that on 11th July my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said in another place that the Government hoped to make a statement about the family court by the autumn. I hope that what I have said today will be seen as redeeming that pledge. The major improvements which the Bill will achieve in the substantive law, procedure and jurisdiction take us a long way towards achieving the general approach to all family litigation sought by those who have been calling for a family court. The Government will not stop here, however, and the way forward is signalled by this Bill.
496
I hope that the Bill will be seen on all sides of the House as a landmark in children's legislation. It deals with important and difficult issues which require great care and sensitivity. The Bill will, in particular, establish a framework of rights and responsibilities with which to see that children in need receive the care, upbringing and protection they require, and that parents and others with an interest in the child can play a full part in those crucially important decisions. I accordingly commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.44 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is a pleasure to express the gratitude of the House to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for a masterly exposition of the Bill. It is also a pleasure to express on behalf of the official Opposition the general approval of what in the history of our legislation may well be termed the children's charter.
In his introduction the noble and learned Lord referred to the background to the Bill. It has a substantial history, which is one of scandalous cases; inter-departmental reports; consultation papers; a report by Mr. Blom-Cooper on poor little Jasmine Beckford; a report by a Lord Justice of Appeal on the Cleveland cases; a government White Paper; and a Law Commission report. Against that substantial background of human cruelties, plus the consideration of them with the greatest of care, we now have the Second Reading of this Bill.
The purpose of the Bill can be summarised as being to consolidate, clarify and reform. There is a great need for that. I should like to quote from the Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 presented by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. At page 216, paragraph 13.31, it states:
"We were told of the inadequacy of the present child care legislation and its failure to balance the interests of the child and the rights of parents. The shortcoming in the legal framework was seen by the Associations to have an effect on the way in which public opinion reacted to issues related to child abuse".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the Law Commission report. At the commencement of its exercise it states:
"The main principles of the law are reasonably clear and well accepted. The details, however, are complicated, confusing and unclear. The result is undoubtedly unintelligible to ordinary people, including the families involved, and on occasions may prevent them or the courts from finding the best solution for their children".
Any attempt—as the Bill undoubtedly is—to reform, consolidate and clarify must be welcomed in your Lordships' House.
There are some fundamental principles in the Bill to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention. First, he rightly spoke in terms of parental responsibilities, quite apart from parental rights, as being one of the fundamental principles which the Bill carries into effect. Secondly, throughout the Bill the overriding principle is expressed as being the wellbeing of the child. Thirdly, in looking after the wellbeing of the child there is a need to ensure that the machinery of the local authorities, our legislation

497
process and our courts is speedy and effective. They are the three principles.
In considering them at Second Reading and throughout the remaining stages of the Bill, when in an endeavour to improve the terms of the Bill we shall enter into great detail, we must remember that we are not just dealing with sexually abused children, but with all children—children who are deprived, children who have been cruelly treated, children who have been abandoned, children who have been neglected, children who are out of control and all too often children who are used as ammunition in the fight that parent so often has against parent.
I make some pleas to the Government and I make them at Second Reading, which should deal with general principles and not detail. My first plea is that the Government should not delay the implementation of this Bill. Its provisions are so badly needed. Clause 78 provides that commencement dates are to be fixed by the Secretary of State and that there will be different dates for different provisions and in relation to different cases. Perhaps when he replies to this debate the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will be good enough to indicate when the provisions of the Bill may be brought into effect.
I shall tell him why I especially stress that. It took 10 years before the provisions of the Children Act 1975 were finally implemented, which was a scandalous amount of time. I hope that this Bill will have the energy and, if I may say so, the dynamism of the Lord Chancellor who in a moving speech said how much the provisions are needed. They are needed, and may they be expedited and carried into effect.
My second plea is very necessary. I suppose that it was made all the more necessary when I heard the noble and learned Lord utter the words "available resources". It sends a shudder down the spine of some noble Lords when we hear about resources being made available to local authorities for welfare, general purposes and other matters of great social concern. I also looked with fear and trembling at the commencement of the Bill, where it deals with the financial effects. I read these words:
"The full annual cost of the Bill will therefore be between £4 million and £11 million of which £4 million will fall to local authorities and between £0 and £7 million to courts administration and legal aid. There may also be one-off training costs for local authority staff training".
My second plea to the Government is that of all matters being dealt with in the financial programme they should not stint on children.
I mentioned the question of training. If ever anything should not be stinted on it is on the training of those who are meant to carry out the active part of this Bill. It is so easy for us as legislators to think with some sort of sanctimonious comfort that we have looked after the children. We have passed a measure and have given great consideration to the provisions of the Bill. However, the people who have to carry it out are the people who have to be specialists for this job of all jobs. That has been emphasised and must not be forgotten.
498
I turn at once to the report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on the inquiry into child abuse. Perhaps I may read what she said by way of conclusions on training. I quote from page 225 at paragraph 15.2, which states:
"We regard training as an issue of central importance in ensuring that the special needs of children who have or may have been sexually abused are properly recognised and met".
She was talking about sexually abused children. What she said there and in the subsequent paragraph that I read applies to most of the children who come into care and who have problems. The report goes on:
"It was our overwhelming impression that the training provided nationally is inadequate".
She goes on to talk about the lack of training for general practitioners, social workers and nurses and says how essential that training is.
It is very common for the media, as your Lordships know, to criticise social workers. Either they have interfered and done too much or they have not been anywhere near the family or the premises and they have done too little. What they do in this specialist field is psychologically so important that the whole future physical and mental make up of the child depends on the accuracy of their judgment and the speciality of their conduct. If we stint on training resources we are not carrying out what we think we may be carrying out if the Bill goes on the statute book.
Perhaps I may ask some questions before I sit down. As the noble and learned Lord emphasised, Clause 69 is terrifically important because it deals with what he so rightly emphasised was a great improvement in jurisdiction; that is. it allows the Lord Chancellor to specify the courts and the provisions for transferability. Those are terribly important provisions. I did not understand, and I know it was my fault, his allusion to the family court and the compliance with an undertaking of the Attorney-General. I did not find his words very clear—and I repeat it must have been my fault. I did not know whether he was saying, "Look, in this Bill you can see that we have built the foundation for that unified court, the family court, which has been recommended by so many authorities and of course is also recommended in the Butler-Sloss Report". Was he saying that we have built the foundation or that we have built a substitute for the family court? Is the substitute to be the transferability from magistrates' court to county court arid High Court without all the conciliation procedures and without having a unified court dealing with all family problems? Perhaps in his kindness the noble and learned Lord will clarify what he said in that connection.
My next question is in regard to guardians ad litem to which the noble and learned Lord also drew the attention of the House. Clause 36(7) provides that the Secretary of State can establish panels from which the guardians ad litem may be selected. Clause 36(8) states that this is without prejudice to his ability to confer duties on the Official Solicitor. Will the noble and learned Lord please tell the House what he has in mind in that connection?

499
I particularly have in mind that the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper suggested for discussion that an office of child protection should be provided. That is not mentioned in this Bill. From what the noble and learned Lord has spoken about, and from what we see in this Bill relating to the Official Solicitor's duties being conferred on him without prejudice to what is said about the guardians ad litem, are we to understand that the Official Solicitor is to take the place of what was formerly intended to be the office of child protection?
For my next question I turn also to the matter of guardians ad litem. At one time it was mooted—sensibly, if I may humbly say so—that there should be a national administration of guardians ad litem as against a local one. I am not entirely sure whether that is carried out in the Bill. It seems to me that it is not. If it is not—I wonder whether it is sensible—it means that the guardians ad litem will be managed, as I see it, and paid in the area of the local authority and by the local authority which they may have to combat and oppose on occasions. Is it sensible that that should be so, or should there not be national administration?
My final question is this. There will be an increase in cases in which the guardians ad litem will be involved by virtue of Clause 36, to which, again, the noble and learned Lord referred. I am reliably informed that there are already delays in some parts of the country in getting these guardians appointed due to the lack of resources. I have referred to resources previously. Can we be assured that that will not happen after the provisions of the Bill are carried out?
Having said all that, I repeat what I said earlier. The official Opposition welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on it, though we may have to differ in some respects when we reach other stages of the Bill.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of this Bill. Your Lordships may have heard it somewhat cynically observed that children cannot be too careful in their choice of parents. We should realise that Parliament cannot be too careful in legislating to protect children from the difficulties which children do absolutely nothing to create.
The Bill is of vital importance, not only for what it sets out but for what it may sweep away. Among other things it will govern the circumstances in which children can be taken from their parents, sometimes irrevocably; the circumstances in which parents can be prevented from seeing their children; and the circumstances in which parents may even lose the right to be consulted about their children.
There is always a difficult balance to strike to ensure that intervention by the courts and by local authorities only occurs in the most serious cases; to ensure that such intervention, when it is necessary, is swift and effective; to ensure that rehabilitation is attempted as soon as possible; and to ensure that any decision to rehabilitate, or not to rehabilitate, a child
500
with his or her parents is an informed and authoritative decision, ratified where necessary by a court.
Reference has been made to the inquiries which have taken place into various tragedies. It is a feature of many of those cases that the statutory powers already existed but were simply not used. It is a sad fact that in some of those cases the social workers were intimidated, misled or simply unable to get at the truth. Indeed, we should not fall into the trap of baiting social workers for their inadequacies. Many of them are extremely good but it is extremely difficult for them. They either do too much or too little and it is difficult for them to get it right. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the need for training.
Clause 38 provides the very valuable new emergency protection order. It is a great improvement on the existing arrangements for place of safety orders. However, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can say who, in practice, will be making these orders and whether the lessons of the Cleveland saga in relation to place of safety orders have been learnt.
I also question the deliberate omission of provision for medical assessment orders. That topic was discussed in the Kimberly Carlile inquiry and others. If there is any doubt as to whether a child should be medically examined surely that doubt should be resolved in favour of the child. There should be a proper power to require medical assessment without always the need to resort to the more drastic emergency protection order. Medical assessment, and indeed developmental assessment, is valuable and useful in these cases, provided of course the child concerned is not exposed to medical examinations ad nauseam by or on behalf of the various competing adults.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we only hear of the sensationalised cases. We only hear of cases when something goes wrong. In the vast majority of cases the courts and the social workers deal with them sensitively and successfully. It is therefore important to look at how the Bill will work in dealing with the ordinary day-to-day cases which do not attract the headlines.
The heart of the Bill—at any rate from a lawyer's point of view—is to be found in Clauses 69, 70 and 71. Clause 69, as we have been told, enables the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to regulate the courts in which proceedings are to be initiated and then to be continued. It was encouraging to read the discussion paper of July 1988 from the Lord Chancellor's Department indicating that the department was actively considering a rational system of case allocation and control. I hope that the department's present thinking will be revealed to us in greater detail and that it will not be left to amendment at a later stage, because the point of entry into the legal system, and what one might call the quality control of a case thereafter, can be absolutely crucial.
I hope that the Government will do nothing to deprive parents and children of the calibre of the existing judiciary, in particular the judges and

501
registrars in the Family Division, and will do nothing to deprive access to the expertise of lawyers who specialise in that division. Arrangements must be made to ensure that complex and lengthy cases can and will go to the High Court.
Having said that I was encouraged, I should add that I was somewhat discouraged by Clause 69(4), which requires the agreement of the Secretary of State. That tends to suggest that considerations outside the administration of justice will intervene. I should prefer to see in the Bill a provision for consultation with the president of the Family Division.
I also hope that the noble and learned Lord can say what appellate structure is contemplated. He indicated that this would be a matter for later amendment by the Government. I hope that he can lift the veil this afternoon or at least indicate that the amendments will be brought before this House rather than another place.
I turn from the question of the right of appeal to the status of the parties in care proceedings. Both subjects were covered by the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986. The status of the parties is now covered by Clause 70 of this Bill. The 1986 Act began as Sir Dennis Walters's Private Member's Bill in another place. At the Government's insistence it was heavily modified, the argument being that all the topics covered by that Bill would be dealt with as part of the Government's overhaul of child care law. This is the promised overhaul, I believe that Parliament is entitled to an assurance that the 1986 Act that was effectively hijacked by the Government will not now be blown up.
I ask that Clause 70 will not diminish the hard-won status of grandparents in care proceedings. In practice grandparents who are willing and able to help are still too often overlooked in these cases. At first sight, one criticism of the Bill before us is that it may make matters too difficult for grandparents and for foster parents to contribute. Foster parents are special people entitled to special consideration.
We have been told that Clause 71 restricts access by local authorities to the wardship jurisdiction. I suggest that the clause is far too restrictive especially if read with Clause 8(4). The premise behind Clause 71 appears to be that with satisfactory grounds for the taking of children into care and satisfactory grounds for releasing them from care the wardship jurisdiction will be unnecessary. If the Government are right about that the use of wardship will diminish naturally and Clause 71 will be unnecessary.
Meanwhile, I suggest that we must not lose the traditional protective role of the High Court and the expertise to which I have already referred. It is not without significance that wardship has developed in recent years to deal with situations that have not been covered by the statutory code. Local authorities have valued the availability of wardship; it is a jurisdiction that is flexible, authoritative and more distant from the local arena. Wardship enables the court to make decisions to control perceived risks to children without having to make findings either because the evidence is not sufficient or because for a court to make express findings on a sensitive topic—possibly
502
alleged sexual abuse—will be hurtful to the adults who need to continue to work together for the benefit of the child concerned.
It seems that in this case the Government are going further than the DHSS Review of Child Care Law in 1985. At page 109 of the review it was not recommended that there should be,
"any change in the statutory ground for committal to care in wardship. Although we consider that our proposals will greatly reduce the need for local authorities to resort to wardship, we cannot claim to have foreseen every case in which it may be necessary to protect a child".
Likewise, the Cleveland report is being ignored in this respect. Paragraph 16.37 states:
"There is no doubt that the wardship jurisdiction came to the rescue of an otherwise overburdened Juvenile Court. It has proved in Cleveland to be an invaluable procedure to enable extremely difficult, complex and emotive issues to be fully considered and adjudicated upon. Wardship has an ethos which is recognised by those who use and are engaged in the jurisdiction. We see wardship having a role to play in care proceedings in the future".
The fact is that the statutory grounds provided by this Bill are not foolproof. And they are not lawyer-proof. I am aware that the lawyers are already busily trying to pick holes in them. Therefore we should not discard the wardship jurisdiction until we are absolutely sure it is not needed. And we cannot be sure.
The financial memorandum to the Bill suggests that savings from wardship may be used for example in employing guardians ad litem. I welcome the move towards the more universal use of them. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, guardians ad litem should have true financial independence from local authorities. It is not enough to talk in general terms of distancing them. They should also not have to operate without legal representation. The reality is that there are simply not enough guardians ad litem available, and they are still crippled with insufficient resources.
The same point can be made about the provisions in the Bill stipulating timetables for child care cases. The concept of a timetable is admirable in theory. Children should not be allowed to drift and a week is truly a long time in a child's life. But timetables will be of little practical use if the courts are simply not available; if the guardians do not have the resources; or if it takes months to get an appointment with a child psychiatrist. This is an area in which there can be no real sanctions against a failure to comply with the timetable.
The Bill has many important provisions relating to private law as regards private disputes between parents over custody (it was formerly called custody) of the children. There are a number of minor concerns which I hope will not allow a distortion of the future working of the Bill in the private area. Clause 1 restates the welfare principle and gives a checklist. The first item on that list is the wishes and feelings of the child concerned, considered in the light of his age and understanding. This recognises the view that the voice of the child should not be ignored. We should remember that the voice of the child in these matters is not always reliable arid that there is a contrary view; namely, that children have the right not to decide a dispute between their parents and the right not to have to express a preference between their

503
parents. In practice, children give mixed messages. They are often trying to be desperately loyal to both parents. Some children form an exaggerated loyalty to one parent and an exaggerated hostility to another. Some children say one thing to one adult and a different thing to another, saying what they hope will find favour.
The worry about the prominence given in Clause 1 of the Bill to the wishes of the children is that parents will be advised to go out and ascertain the wishes of the child concerned. The pressure on the child will be increased when he is already distressed enough. It is very often a matter of practice nowadays for parents to come along to their lawyers with tape recordings saying, "This is what my child wants to do. Listen to the tape; can we play it to the judge?". That is very distressing and such circumstances should be avoided if possible.
Clause 7 introduces new terminology. It is hoped that this is rather more than a cosmetic renaming and that the terms used will be less emotive. The wording creates a measure of uncertainty about who is to have responsibility for the general management of the child concerned and uncertainty also for third parties such as headmasters as regards who to look to in medical and other emergencies.
I have one other concern as regards terminology; that is the question of international enforcement. The concept of a residence order does not seem to fit very easily with the convention contained in the Child Custody and Abduction Act 1985. That envisaged rather more than just residence. I hope that we can have an assurance that the Government are considering this aspect and that residence orders will be respected and enforced by foreign courts.
There are a number of other matters perhaps appropriate for discussion at the Committee stage. This is a Bill that will need detailed attention and sufficient time. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in expressing anxiety about the implementation of the Bill. The Children Act 1975 was a disgrace in terms of limping legislation. It took years to come into force and a great deal of uncertainty was caused. I hope that the Government will now think in terms of overall consolidation of other aspects of child legislation omitted from the Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise to echo the congratulations of the two previous speakers on the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill. It was done in a splendid way and was easy to understand. I speak in this debate simply because I have had long experience of social work myself. I was chairman of the children's committee in Roxburghshire for some 20 years and chairman of the Advisory Council on Child Care for Scotland for another five or six years. I can speak with some authority on the subject before us today.
Admittedly, the area with which I was concerned was small. Our problems were never as difficult as those of the large cities and the great urban areas.
504
However, I learnt one or two things which are of relevance today. When the children's committees were set up in county councils, trained children's officers did not exist. The training of social workers was more or less in its infancy. The revolution in training was largely due to Dame Eileen Younghusband who was on the staff of the London School of Economics. She had been commissioned by the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust to make a report on the importance of the training of people to become children's officers and social workers. I remember at the beginning that county councils appointed anyone they thought would be able to cope because there was nobody else to do the job. There were some strange appointments. However, other universities, inspired by the London School of Economics, set up departments for the training of social workers. That was an enormous help. As chairman of my children's committee, I always refused to appoint anyone in my area who had not been trained, although the training was not very conclusive. However, things gradually advanced. With the far greater problems of today it is obvious that the training of social workers is very inadequate.
The normal training period is two years. Many undergraduates are quite inexperienced and not very old. Two years to deal with these extremely difficult subjects, which are becoming more difficult as we all know from the reports we read every day, is totally inadequate. I very much hope that after the Bill is passed more care and study will be given to the training of social workers and that money will be made available—it always costs money to do these things—so that men or women who are considered qualified for this difficult job will have a much better and more conclusive training in social work.
I should like also to refer to family courts. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the issue was under close consideration and might be brought up later on. I urge that this be thought of now. In Scotland we have had family courts for five or six years. I hoped very much that as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is (what shall I say?) the king of the Scottish Bar as well as everything else, he would be able to persuade the powers that be in England of the importance of the matter.
The courts have been successful in Scotland. It is not as though one is recommending something that has not been tried. Family courts have been in operation in Scotland for several years. The courts are supported by everyone in Scotland today—social workers, sheriffs, the police and so on. They are so obviously the right way to deal with these difficult problems. Instead of children being brought before the courts in a formal manner they sit round a table in a room with all the interested persons present—their parents probably and anyone else who they decide is the right person to be there—and talk informally about these matters. That gives the child a chance to say something without being alarmed by the conditions under which an ordinary court is conducted. It is very valuable. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will use his influence in order to provide these courts in England.
I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the importance of supporting all this work

505
by additional funds. It would be an economy and at the end of the day would save a good deal of money. A good many people will not have to go to court and be dealt with by solicitors and lawyers. They will already have been understood and dealt with in their own areas. That is extremely important.
I was also delighted to hear that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston, are prepared to back the Bill. It is not a party political Bill. It is a Bill which will help in the training of social workers, in the teaching of children and with the dealing of difficult and complicated problems. It is an admirable Bill to which no doubt there will be amendments in Committee. But the principle and the way in which it has been put forward are quite excellent and I hope that everyone will give it support.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I presume to welcome the Bill and to congratulate my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack on his introduction of it. If one could possibly have a cavil, it is that the masterly clarity of that introduction disguises the complexity of many of the provisions of the Bill and invitably tempts one into dealing with Committee points at Second Reading. That being so, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with just two generalities, the first of which I recognise lies on the periphery of the Bill.
At the outset the Bill says that the paramount consideration in everything the Bill concerns is the welfare of the child. The old phrase was "the first and paramount consideration". That was really a pleonasm, because the "paramount consideration" means that the welfare of the child is more important than all the other considerations taken together, and therefore inevitably more important than any single consideration. I welcome that statement at the outset both as a method of statutory drafting and for its content. It emphasises that the Bill does not deal with a great sphere of our law where the welfare of children is intimately involved. I refer to matrimonial law. In matrimonial law (I think rightly left outside this Bill) there is no question that the welfare of the child is neither the first nor the paramount consideration, and your Lordships' consideration of this Bill may cause you to question whether that is right and whether it should be so.
My noble and learned friend on more than one occasion spoke of the Bill aiming to maintain the integrity of the family or the integrity of family life: he used both phrases. But anybody who heard the debate on home affairs on the humble Address must have been left with the firm impression that much of the evil in our society is due to the fact that we have not given sufficient maintenance and support to the family and to family life.
The other thing I wanted to mention arises out of the Cleveland report and out of the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Baroness who has just sat down. I speak naturally with considerable concern at what happened at Cleveland but also with caution today because some of the matters are sub judice. But there has been one most interesting discussion arising out of the report.
506
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, after having made the report, put forward the suggestion that it was not necessarily advantageous to anyone to take the perpetrator of child abuse out of the family, out of the community and particularly into prison. All who heard the debate to which I referred last week will, I think, echo that. But it was answered by a sociologist of distinction. She agreed that incarceration was by no means the best treatment but she said that there ought to be prosecution. That is understandable as marking society's reprobation of the conduct concerned.
However, there is an aspect of the family court which might deal with that more satisfactorily. If I may say so with great respect, I shared the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I was not completely clear how far my noble and learned friend was intending to dovetail a system of family court into the various institutions set up under the Bill. Since I put forward the concept of a structure of family court, I have been completely convinced that there are two matters which ought to be part of it. One I do not think is necessarily closely connected with this Bill, and that is that every court of domestic jurisdiction, and certainly every court of matrimonial jurisdiction, should have not only a judicial side but a welfare side and it is only those matters that cannot be dealt with by the welfare side that should have to come for judicial decision.
But there is another aspect. In 1965 the Home Office put forward a White Paper—at least its cover was white: one never knows these days—for consideration called Children and Trouble. That suggested they would best be dealt with in a family council. What was meant there was the extended family, which is known to many systems of judicature and legislature, whereas our system knows only the nuclear family.
I ventured to disagree with that document only in one respect, and that was that the family council was to be presided over by a social worker. I think, on its merits and particularly within the context of this Bill, the family council, or an extended family council, ought to be presided over by a magistrate, with a social worker attending as adviser and consultant. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to say something about how that strikes him because I know that his department has done a great deal of work on the matter of family courts. I have no doubt it will be raised further in the debate because the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is to speak later. Those are the two matters in general which I should like to refer to.
Obviously as your Lordships go through the Bill a great many matters of detail will come up, but I have no hesitation in welcoming the Bill as a whole in the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for its clarity, for its compendiousness and for the fact that now there is one document to which courts and all others can look for their instruction and information.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a singular privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in this debate. He

507
speaks from a wealth of knowledge and experience which I do not possess. At the outset, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his clarity of expression in explaining the Bill. I should also wish to associate myself with the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Meston, in their welcome for the general principles of the Bill as a whole. This, as has been truly said by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, is not a political affair at all. We have to get it right.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor truly said, this is in effect but a stage in an evolutionary process of reform in the law affecting children. The main purpose of this stage—this Bill—is to provide a fairer and more effective framework of child care law, with connected purposes. It is those connected purposes on which I should wish to dwell a little because in my view, and I hope it is the view of your Lordships, those connected purposes are the means of implementation of the framework of the Bill as it stands, and we are a little light on those.
The order of reform is cathartic: six enactments repealed and 30 enactments amended. One must accept, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor accepts, that in this, as in other aspects of the law affecting children, Parliament has ill-served the interests of children. It took 55 years for the maximum sentence for cruelty by a parent to his own child to be increased from two years to 10. That happened a couple of months ago.
As matters stand today, according to the will of Parliament, a child living three miles from school is entitled to free transport, but living less than three miles from school he has no such entitlement and can walk the best part of six miles to school.
Coming to matters concerned with the Bill, and concerned with the child's upbringing, parental status and children at risk, which are all within the scope of the Bill, the judiciary has always softened the rough edges of statute law by wardship and by resort to its inherent jurisdiction.
The provisions of Clause 71 which curtail the judiciary's jurisdiction—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to its traditional protective role, and if he did, how I agree with him—and its traditional protective role at this early stage (the first stage of the evolutionary process) warrant critical examination. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, also took the point. I take the point, and, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I have no need to quote passages from Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report which I have in my papers. We are at one on this matter. Clause 71 demands critical examination by all sides of your Lordships' House.
As regards the Bill's practical implementation, within the scope of the "connected purposes" amendments concerned with principle will be tabled: first, to make general provision for the keeping and placing of children in secure accommodation under the authority of the court by introducing a new clause to such effect under Part II and by deleting Clause 21 in Part III, which is concerned exclusively with children looked after by a local authority; in other
508
words, to bring the matter out of the particular in Part III and put it into the general protection of children under Part II. That is a matter which will warrant your Lordships' examination. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to seek to obtain your Lordships' opinion on a matter of principle.
In a slightly different context, provision could also be made for a hospital to inform the local authority of any child kept as a patient for more than, say, two or three months.
Secondly, an amendment will be tabled to include in Clause 36, by the insertion of subsection (9)(i), a provision to ensure that the role of the Official Solicitor in High Court proceedings shall not in any way be affected by the appointment of a guardian ad litem, albeit with legal qualifications, in any inferior court. I raise that point because, according to my information, there is concern that the Bill as drafted might to some degree reduce the status and functions of the Official Solicitor in that regard.
The third matter relates to Clause 69 to which certainly the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred and, I think, also the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. An amendment will be tabled to ensure that the rules of court, made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, as to which classes of cases shall be tried by which court shall assuredly not be subject to the veto of the executive; that is, the Secretary of State. I shall table an amendment to delete Clause 69(4). I know of no precedent where the executive has held the veto over the judiciary in such a context.
Furthermore, an amendment will be tabled to ensure that the rules of court shall be made by regulations so that, in accordance with Clause 76(2), they shall be laid before Parliament and subject to negative resolution. I listened with attention to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, but there is nothing in Clause 69 to ensure that the regulations, the rules of court or whatever, afford any person interested the right to apply to the specified court for transfer to another court. That could no doubt be a matter of insurance, but I suggest, with the greatest of respect to my noble and learned friend, that that is an entitlement of importance which should be covered by express statutory provision: the right of any person interested to apply to the specified court, for some reason or other, for transfer to another court.
There is a further difficult question. It is a matter for your Lordships. I do not know whether it comes within the intendment of the Bill. If it does, it might come under Clause 51(2). It is a problem with which all your Lordships are familiar: an unmarried mother, often a child herself, with her child goes into a voluntary home. After they have entered the voluntary home, they go out of it into bed and breakfast accommodation. There is then no supervision. The girl may sometimes be 13 or 14 or a little older. Your Lordships all know what goes on and how undesirable it is not only for the child mother but for the child mother's child.
I wondered whether something could be devised—I have been unable to devise it—to protect, deal with, or in some way control that situation in the interests of both children.

509
The hope is that an amendment will be tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and other noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Meston, have spoken about the point and my noble friend Lady Elliot with her great experience also spoke about it—in respect of the absolute need under "connected purposes" in the Bill's implementation to ensure a specific allocation and control of funds for the requisite recruitment, training and protection of the pay structures of social workers. These are the forces on the ground, the infantry in the campaign for the care and protection of children without whose good offices no practical advance may be made or held.
I wish to say this: in the wake of Cleveland ought we not to pay a generous tribute to the sense of dedication of social workers? is it not essential to their morale and status and indeed to the practical implementation of the Bill that Cleveland should be seen only as serving the greater purpose of focusing public attention upon urgent and important problems of nationwide incidence, problems buried in a maze of accumulated legal dust and layer upon layer of unbelievable complexity?
In conclusion, if it took a distinguished lawyer of the calibre of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, with her wealth of specialist expertise, to set us on the road to reform, assuredly the resolution of the questions before us does not lie within the province of any lawyer, however eminent, and certainly not within his exclusive province.
No doubt our debates on the Bill will afford yet another opportunity to demonstrate that your Lordships' House as presently constituted can render signal service and not only to another place; an order of service which no elected Chamber could conceivably perform.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I feel rather nervous speaking after five lawyers. However, I shall add my voice to the general welcome given to the Bill. We have waited a long time for it, but 1 should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Department of Health on the consultations they have held and on the fact that they have listened to what has been said to them and made some changes as a result.
That is in very sharp contrast to the Education Bill with which I was dealing earlier in the year, where there was hardly any consultation at all. Most certainly, those dealing with the education service in this country would not listen to the comments in response to what consultation there was. The result was that the Bill had a long and stormy passage. Therefore I trust that we shall study the Bill in a co-operative and constructive way and that we can make it an even better Bill than it is at the moment.
It is good to have child care law simplified and consolidated. There may be room for even more consolidation later. It is good to have it unequivocally stated that the child's welfare should be the court's paramount consideration. It would be even better if the Bill supported the view of the Cleveland inquiry that:
"the child is a person not an object of concern",
510
by giving the child, where possible, a greater say in what happens to him or her and by emphasising the rights of the child. This could be done by placing courts (in Clause 1) and the local authorities (in Clause 18) under a duty to ensure that, where they are satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision about the issue in question, he shall be entitled to determine it, unless the court or the local authority considers that his welfare would be seriously prejudiced if he did so. I hope that an amendment on those lines will be favourably considered.
I wish to raise only two points. One concerns the abolition of the absolute right of all children in care proceedings to be represented by a solicitor. The White Paper promised party status to children, parents and the local authorities. It would appear that the representation of children has been traded for financial reasons for the representation of parents.
It is good that guardians ad litem will almost certainly be appointed to safeguard the interests of the child. Since their introduction four years ago they have improved the standards of decision-making. However, in preparing the case for court, guardians ad litem work in conjunction with the child's solicitor. The duty of the guardian is to give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child, while the duty of the solicitor is to represent the child's wishes and feelings. This partnership has been one of the healthiest and most positive developments in our child care law. It could be at risk.
Incidentally, I was very glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord said about the appointment of the panels of the guardians. I think that would be an improvement. It seems that under the Bill a solicitor would be appointed only where there is no guardian ad litem if the child wishes to be legally represented and is of sufficient understanding or where it appears to the court that it would be in the child's best interests for him to be represented. This will mean that in many cases the guardians ad litem will go unrepresented, putting them at a disadvantage with regard to the other parties. The Government recognised that guardians would need lawyers when they withdrew their proposals to make guardians do their own advocacy when they were consulting on the 1984 rules.
There seems an underlying assumption that where adults agree (that is, the family and the local authorities) children may not need independent representation. The reports of the deaths of Maria Colwell and Jasmine Beckford tell us that when adults agree children can be at their most vulnerable. It is not possible to predict when it will be "in the child's best interests"—that is quoting from Clause 36(4)—for a solicitor to be appointed. The only sure way of safeguarding children is to make the appointment automatic.
The second point I wish to raise is about children and young people leaving care. The 1984 House of Commons Social Services Committee's inquiry into child care—the Short Report, it was called—recommended not only that the law on children in

511
care should be reviewed and consolidated but also that local authorities should be placed under a duty to prepare young people for leaving care and to support those leaving care, to quote from the report,
"in the manner of a good parent".
Clause 20 of the Bill, however, only requires local authorities to prepare young people for leaving care and to advise and befriend those who have left care. It otherwise merely simplifies the present rather complicated powers to assist in more practical ways and introduces a new power to make this assistance in the form of a loan.
That follows the White Paper proposal and the recommendations of the interdepartmental review but it is disappointing. One can only guess that the Government's rejection of the Select Committee's proposal was because of resource implications, and resource implications were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and other noble Lords.
Each year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. The majority have no suitable family home to return to and therefore have to live independently. The situation facing them has been exacerbated by recent social security legislation which is based on the premise that young people under 25 should continue to be dependent on their parents. In April there were changes to the means tested benefits system and in September restrictions of income support for people under 18 years of age. Many authorities are beginning to identify the potential cumulative effect of these changes and the fact that these will have a significant effect not only upon policies relating to young people in care but especially also upon procedures and practices surrounding discharge from care and care in the community in respect of young adults. There are particular concerns about the eligibility of young people under 18 for community care grants.
There are likely to be considerable difficulties with these young people finding suitable accommodation. Incidentally, there should surely be many more hostels where those without homes to go to can find reasonable lodgings. Some authorities already have leaving care schemes, for example Calderdale which has a maximum grant of £650, the amount being dependent on the length of time the young person has spent in care and what his circumstances are. Other authorities simply abandon young people on their eighteenth birthday and they may well end up on the street. We all know what that can lead to. It can lead to all kinds of temptations which we would surely all want to avoid.
If, as the Select Committee recommended, local authorities were placed under a duty to assist young people
"in the manner of a good parent",
they would have a considerable degree of discretion, as do other parents.
According to Clause 20(6), assistance may be given:
"in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash."
That assistance is very unlikely to be given in the present strapped financial circumstances in which
512
local authorities find themselves. If there were a positive duty, it would safeguard the young person against unreasonable neglect and mean that all authorities would have to maintain some kind of leaving budget. I myself think it would be infinitely better if that obligation fell on social security rather than on local authorities. I do not know whether it is possible to bring that into the Bill, but I think that it is the lack of social security help which leads to so many difficulties. But, failing that, I hope that local authorities may perhaps be put under a duty to make some provision to help these people.
Since I wrote my speech over the weekend I have heard that Barnardo's has produced a paper which very much emphasises this same theme of leaving care. Unfortunately, I have not had the time, as I received the paper just before lunch, to read it. But I thought that the introduction was extremely interesting.
I wish to quote the following words:
"The thing is society places itself in a position where it takes the role of parent. Now most parents don't stop at 18. Society does".
Those words came from a young man, aged 20, called Mark who was speaking at Barnardo's annual conference. Those words emphasise very much the point I wish to make which is that young people may be left in a very vulnerable situation when suddenly their care comes to an end and they are abandoned without families to go to. I hope very much that we can do something about that issue when we come to consider the Bill in Committee. Money spent wisely in this way, whether by local authorities or by the Department of Social Security, would save a great deal of money in the future.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as has been said by all noble Lords who have spoken, we are deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very clear summary of the Bill. That was very helpful to us all.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, there was a meeting of voluntary and statutory child care organisations this morning. At that meeting 18 bodies were represented and all supported the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, further stated, those organisations were grateful for the consultations which have taken place with them and which have led to this Bill. The Children Bill is indicative of insight, sensitivity and sound good sense. It strikes a balance between prevention work and protection work. However, I think it is important to note that it also contains clauses on the promotion of good child care in this country as a whole.
We are grateful to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, who so ably carried out the Cleveland inquiry. We are also grateful for the inquiries into the deaths of Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile and Tyra Henry. I mention that because I think it is right to get in proportion the fact that we are not just talking about sexual abuse cases. We are talking about all children who suffer from sexual abuse, cruelty in all its forms and poor child care. We wish to pay tribute to the work of our Ministers, the Law Commission, civil servants and the inspectorate for their input into this Bill.

513
At first I was concerned that the title of the Bill was the Children Bill. I thought that it could have been entitled the Children and Family Bill. However, on reflection it is, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a children's charter. It reflects the concept that the well-being of the child is paramount. At the same time, the Bill safeguards the rights of parents and promotes and supports their responsibilities. Those two concepts are inextricably interwoven and one is dependent on the other. The Bill goes some way not only in dealing with the incidence of cruelty and abuse but, as I said earlier, actively promoting the well-being of children. I shall come to that later.
Part III of the Bill has particular importance in that it provides services likely to assist parents to keep their children at home. It assists parents who must go out to work. Unlike other EC countries, our country has as yet no policy for the social and educational care of children under five. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will be speaking particularly on this matter, because I happened to read the outstanding speech he made last week in which that issue was incorporated. I hope that we may hear the contents of that speech here again in your Lordships' House.
The Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science are beginning to acknowledge the importance of the years nought to five. To that extent both Ministries have given money towards the setting up of a research unit at the National Children's Bureau to look into the needs of children under five. But there are some very worrying situations here. For example, the Ministries do not seem to be working in concert with one another.
I believe it was last week that The Times printed an article which stated that the Home Office was to undertake responsibility for children under five of working mothers. I must be careful here because I have not checked this with the Home Office. Unfortunately, as the article was written in the newspaper, the thing that came across as being of greatest importance was the fact that mothers should be able to work for the sake of businesses and commercial enterprises. At the end of the article, just as a little aside, it was stated that the children had better be cared for.
I think that it should be the other way round. The emphasis should be on how children can best be cared for, and how this will then enable mothers to go out to work without their children being hurt emotionally in any way. I hope that when we talk about the promotion of a better structure in our society we shall take that into account. I hope also that the Ministries will be able to work together on that matter.
We are in some difficulty here because we would like that matter to be included in the Bill. As I think has been mentioned by one noble Lord, many of us feel that the nursery and childminders legislation should be repealed and something better put in its place in this Bill. However, I feel that that matter will need very careful consideration, perhaps by a committee set up to look into the needs of children under five, so that in this country for the first time
514
there will be a policy with regard to the care of children under five.
Other countries within the EC have policies, and their policies are good ones. We could learn from them. While I am on this issue I wish to mention one last point. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will be speaking on this matter. My point is that if we are seeking women in order to swell our workforce—I believe that is one of the intentions of the Home Office—we must realise that children need unhurried time and sensitivity in their pace of life. That must be taken into account when considering mothers working and running their homes.
I wish to speak on Part IV of the Bill on the question of a multidisciplinary assessment. It was pointed out in the Cleveland report that there was no co-operation between the various different people playing a part in the child's life. That was one of the leading points made by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. It is said by many people that it is good practice to hold a case conference before action is taken on a child in any particular instance. That case conference should concern the teacher, the health visitor, the doctor if possible, a paediatrician, the police, the probation service, and so on. It is good practice.
In local authority social services departments throughout the country case conferences are held, but that was not done in Cleveland. Therefore, although it is general practice I believe that it has to be written into the Bill that before a case is taken to court there should be a multidisciplinary assessment. I also believe that the local authority solicitor should be present at such case conferences, and the guardian ad litem.
Furthermore, although the Department of Health has sent out very good circulars to all those concerned, such circulars go to different departments which have different management structures. For instance, I imagine that the circulars go to the general practitioners' committee for general practitioners, and to the department of education for education welfare officers; I imagine that they go to the social services department, and so on. While the information is sent out in circulars it goes to different people who are subject to different management structures. Therefore I believe that very serious consideration should be given to including a clause in the Bill making a multidisciplinary assessment obligatory. I put that to your Lordships' House.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the value of the guardian ad litem system. I hope that in the appointment of guardians ad litem we shall consider older people who have had experience of social work, people who have training and people who will not want to be social workers in social services departments. We do not want the guardians ad litem to cream off the social workers, because where would we be then? I think that we should consider guardians ad litem as people of maturity, experience and training.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the structure of the guardian ad litem system. At the moment it is almost a home industry, if I may put it that way. A number of guardians ad (item work from their homes; they do not work from an office or with a

515
number of other people with whom they can discuss matters. I believe, as I think other noble Lords believe, that the guardian ad litem service needs to be organised into panels or offices of some kind, perhaps under a chief adviser or co-ordinator. Such a policy would give a consistency of service throughout the country which does not exist at the moment.
I should like to make a further point, which I believe has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David. Can we be given an assurance by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that a child will not be removed from his or her home unless there is no other way of safeguarding the well-being of that child and that the order which is proposed by the court is the most effective means available for safeguarding the child's welfare?
In that connection perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he does not agree that wherever possible and practicable a child should not be separated from the mother. I believe that if a child is very unhappy or has been poorly treated or abused, perhaps by the father, the boyfriend or the man she is living with, to remove the child from the mother is a second abuse. I have felt all along that we ought to work as far as possible not to separate children and mothers unless the mother is implicated or she cannot cope with the situation.
I have to say that I realise, looking back, how extraordinarily fortunate I was when I worked in Oxford to have four units of empty accommodation available. It was possible to go to a mother or a family, making no allegation against the man who was the alleged abuser because that would have been quite unjust, and to suggest that while the matter was under consideration the man might wish to leave the matrimonial home. However, if the tenancy of the house is in the man's name why should he leave the house, particularly as he may say that he wants to plead not guilty? Nevertheless, in the cases in which I interviewed the men they generally left home at once—I do not know what I did to them—and the mother was left in the home with the children. I was also very fortunate in that the local children's hospital had two units of accommodation in the form of empty flats. If we were concerned about a mother's mental health or that she might be worried we were able to offer her accommodation.
This Bill does not seem to emphasise the need to keep mothers and children together where possible and practicable. One of the difficulties is the question of tenancy. If the tenancy is in the man's name there is no reason why he should leave, though I have to say in fairness that many men do.
I turn now to the question of the training of social workers, and I know that I shall get hot under the collar about it. I believe that the subject has been mentioned by almost every Member in your Lordships' House who has spoken. I am bound to say, as I have said before, that up to 1970 social workers received a general social work training of two years. Training in law, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be glad to hear, at that time was very good. We usually had a law lecture each year for two years and had to write an essay.
516
That was quite something. Social workers then worked in the field under supervision and later went on to do a further year's training, either in mental health or child care or working with the elderly and disabled. Ultimately it was a long training but with practical work in between.
Training is not like that these days. It is not up to those standards. Tributes have been paid, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to the work of social workers. It is amazing that they can do what they do with so little training. In the interests of society, in the interests of children and in the interests of this Bill I believe that it behoves this country to see that social workers are adequately trained.
I should make one last point. When one discusses a case with colleagues and one knows that one is less well trained—I do not know whether that is what happened in Cleveland—one tends to give way to them because one has the feeling that they know more. However, if one has had good training one feels on an equal footing with one's colleagues. On many occasions I have been called out at night with the mental health doctor and have been able to argue with him simply because I was fortunate enough to have had good training. It is only if one has had such training that one is on an equal footing with one's colleagues.
I implore Her Majesty's Government to look into the whole question of training, which I know they are doing. Personally, I am not quite sure that the Treasury is willing to provide money for training but I believe that it will be a great loss if it is not done.
Perhaps I may finish by asking the noble and learned Lord some questions of which I have not given notice. The first of them has already been asked by other noble Lords; namely, when will the Bill be brought into force and when will it be brought in in its entirety? I ask that question with great diffidence because I am frightened that if I say why I want the money the Treasury will reply, "We shall bring in this part of the Bill and that part, but not this part of it". Over the past three or four years, or perhaps even longer, services to vulnerable children in this country have diminished. Children's homes have closed, local authorities do not send children to voluntary organisations, which can give superb service, and the children ultimately arrive in youth custody centres.
In our city of London there are parents who have asked for their children to be taken into care because they are unable to manage them, but the local authority has had to refuse because the facilities are not available. The facilities for vulnerable children have been run down and we shall have to build them up again. I dare to say that that will require resources. Will they have to come from the local authorities with their present budgets or will extra money be made available to build up those resources?
There is much else to say. I merely point out that even in the Financial Times it is recommended that money should be spent both on resources and on training social workers. Other noble Lords will follow me, but I make one plea in particular: that this very good Bill should not be spoilt because it cannot be properly administered.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I remember the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying on 24th November that this Bill,
"will he a major overhaul of child care law to provide a fairer and more effective framework".—[Official Report, 24/11/88; col. 104.]
It certainly is. I think that it is a very good Bill. It is a great pleasure too to take part in a debate in which there is neither undertone nor overtone of party politics. Nevertheless, as a layman I must also say that I find the Bill very complex. It has to be read in conjunction with previous legislation. I hope that before long there will be a consolidating Bill to make life easier for those who have the task of implementing it in their daily social work and also for those who are responsible for training. I need not mention again the problem of training, so clearly adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, were also most pertinent.
I do not propose to discuss the legal details of the Bill. Other people more competent than I have already done so or certainly will do so. There is however one aspect of the Bill which I find unsatisfactory. My concern has long been for services to the under fives. Part III of the Bill places a general duty on every local authority,
"to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families".
In defining those in need the Bill states:
"For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if—

(a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain . . . a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this Part;

(b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired . . . without the provision for him of such services; or

(c) he is disabled".

That is fine. It would have my full support if I thought it possible to discover and identify more than a modest proportion of those who are in need. In my view—and it is the view of many others—these services are needed by the great majority of children who, at various stages in their early life, should have access to day nurseries, play groups and, later, preschool education. Where needed, they should also have access to guidance services and so on.
Twenty years ago the Committee of Local Authority Personal Social Services, which I had the honour to chair, pointed out the grave deficiencies of those services, saying:
"The need for day care does not arise from the fact that the parents are working. Of those who do not go out to work there are many mothers with their children who are, or feel, socially isolated, and others, particularly mothers with large families, who need respite from the constant care of several infants. The children involved often lack space to play freely and safely and they need opportunities for mixing which may be denied in overcrowded or isolated households. For play is life to young people and the means by which they learn".
One may say that that was 20 years ago and that things are better now. I must therefore draw attention to what Gillian Pugh, a research worker with the National Children's Bureau, writes in her excellent book Services for Under Fives, published just a year ago:
"There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to provide pre-school services, and as a result services over the country have
518
developed in a haphazard and unco-ordinated way and are often in short supply . . . The Plowden Report of 1967"—
which appeared only three or four months before the Seebohm committee sat—
"accepted for the first time the principle of nursery education on demand, recommending that it should not start uitil the age of three and should be part time".
I thought at the time that that was a fairly modest requirement.
In the 1972 White Paper entitled Education: A Framework for Expansion, the report was accepted. The White Paper recommended the provision of nursery education for 50 per cent. of three year-olds and 90 per cent of four year-olds. That vision was shortlived. The 1980 Education Act removed from local authorities any obligation to provide nursery education and emphasised the discretionary nature of the service. The 1981 Education Act imposed a statutory requirement on local authorities to provide that service but only for children assessed as having special needs. That is the case too under Part III of the Bill. In 1986 the patchy nature of the provision was most marked. Gillian Pugh has pointed out that whereas Hounslow provides nursery education for 66 per cent. of its children of three and four years of age, in 18 other local authorities only one in 10 obtain places.
My point is that most children need day provision but do not get it. So we are still looking at cures and not causes. I am sure that the legal framework we are considering today is a great step forward. However, to continue to limit day care to those in need as defined in the Bill ignores the well researched recommendations of two government approved committees 20 years ago and more recent authoritative reports, which show sad lack of progress. I believe that further legislation or alteration to the Bill is urgent. It may require a Bill leading to another Education Act. I do not know. However, I believe that something has to be done.
I remember only too well 21 years ago sitting round a table with my committee and talking to four or five highly qualified psychiatric doctors who told us that the age from birth to five years was the character forming period which affects children throughout the whole of their lives. The point I wish to stress today is that we do not know which children are in need. I believe that they are all in need.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we must all welcome this Bill which is long overdue, doing away with seven outdated statutes, clarifying and simplifying new ones, which must surely be a benefit to us all. Not only does the Law Society welcome the Bill, but it is anxious, as are we all, that it should be implemented as soon as possible. Only yesterday I heard of an innocent baby dying after being physically maltreated in her own home. Cases such as these fill us with such horror and revulsion that we feel they must never be allowed to recur. On the other hand, we do not wish to cause unnecessary disturbance and distress both to children and their parents, as happened in Cleveland when some children were taken into care who should not have been. There is a very fine line between these two extremes along which

519
this Bill is seeking to tiptoe. In the felicitous phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the Bill is indeed a children's charter.
Having already stated how important I believe the system of the family courts to be, such as we have in Scotland with our children's hearing, I am sorry that there is not a direct provision for them in this Bill, although I believe that Clause 69 goes some way towards this system with increased powers to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to specify which particular courts are to have jurisdiction, and with the removal of criminal connotations. That is a very worthwhile step in the right direction and, with other noble Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack's broad hint that it is only a step in a progression.
I do not go so far as Ruskin who thought that,
"The first duty of a state is to see that every child born therein shall be well housed, clothed, fed and educated till it reach years of discretion".
The first duty of a state must surely be to defend its borders, its laws, its institutions and its people from all enemies, both physical and spiritual. Without that defence there would be no state. Having said that, I would agree with Ruskin that the care of our children must be a prime priority.
Within each child is the person he will one day become. Inside each of us is the child we once were. All of us who had happy, secure and loving childhoods have much for which we can thank our parents and all those who brought us up. If we can continue to give the same love and security to our own children and help others in our land to do so also, we shall be building for ourselves a strong, good and powerful nation for the future.
5.34 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on the rapidity with which they have produced the Bill so soon after the Butler-Sloss report. Perhaps I may also say how pleased I am that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has introduced it.
Broadly, I welcome the Bill very much in that it codifies and extends child-care legislation. It provides an acceptable framework for it which I trust will prove durable for many years to come. I welcome the general statement of principles at the beginning of the Bill and in particular the opportunity now provided for unmarried fathers to acquire parental responsibility.
I note that the press has estimated that 40,000 children are currently registered as suffering or potentially suffering abuse in this country. It is particularly welcome that every local authority is to be required to open and maintain a register of disabled children within its area. It will be important to see, when this comes into operation, how many more children will be thus registered.
It seems to me that the Bill strikes a good balance between children's and parents' interests, and the rights and duties of parents, and, above all, provides that the child's welfare is to be regarded as paramount.
520
I welcome the provisions for emergency protection orders and that parents should have proper rights for making representations to the court, and for having reasonable access to their children.
In spite of my general welcome, there are several issues which cause me anxiety which in due course I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord set at rest. In Part III parental duties for those children being looked after by local authorities are not defined. Again, in the same part, solicitors for children can be appointed only by a court. That appears to me to deny the right of children to legal representation as of their own right.
I much regret that there is no mention in the Bill of family courts. This rather surprises me, because in Scotland—with its fundamentally different legal system—such courts have been a success for the past 20 years or so. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord why it has not been thought fit to learn from Scottish practice and to apply the knowledge gained there to England and Wales. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, perhaps I may also ask the noble and learned Lord to explain what he said. I apologise if I misunderstood him, but I thought he said that there was no call for them yet.
There are two further matters on which I feel anxiety. Resource implications are under consideration by the Government. Many of the encouraging features of the Bill can be introduced successfully only if local authorities have sufficient resources. Local social services departments have found all too often in the recent past that Government have expected them to make far-reaching changes without providing additional resources. Pressure on these departments from childcare duties has meant that additional resources have had to be deployed at the expense of the curtailment of services to other client groups. Again, the Bill's provision can be successfully implemented only if good quality systematic training is provided to all those who will be responsible for carrying it out. Without such training the Bill, with all its good intentions, will be nothing but a dead duck.
Social workers in field, residential and day centres will need specific training over and above their basic qualifications and preparation. I say this after consultation with the Chairman of the National Training Committee for the Association of Directors of Social Services who is the director of social services in the county of North Yorkshire where I live. The director of the sub-committee for children and families—a sub-committee of the Association of Directors of Social Services—feels that specific and specialised training could be difficult for social workers if they are to carry on with their day to day work. Perhaps exta staff will be needed, thus leading to extra financial strain.
I return to Part III with particular reference to Clauses 15 and 16. There is evidence that certain local authorities have closed down their day care facilities. I understand that they have done so because it is a fairly easy way to save money, in particular if the local authority has been rate-capped. I do not think that that was intentional on the part of the Government, and it seems to me that this aspect of the matter needs to be looked at most carefully again.

521
It appears that certain local authorities have interpreted the Education Act 1988 somewhat over literally for children with special needs. I refer in particular to those children who may be deaf or blind. Those children are being sent to schools where there are suitable classes for them but because of their individual home backgrounds they receive little or no support from their parent or parents. In such cases boarding schools for their specific needs might seem far more appropriate, but again that is expensive for local authorities.
Clause 16 appears to enable local authorities to have some loopholes. It should be a duty on local authorities to look after the children in their authorities. Some local authorities would like clarification of what "in need" means and how a local authority will be expected to determine those in need. What about children in bed and breakfast accommodation? They are surely a case of "special need". Moreover, Clause 22(3), dealing with complaint procedures, gives cause for concern to those who have profoundly handicapped children in their care.
Perhaps those two points, and many others, are more suitable for discussion in Committee. I shall mention only one further point. Schedule 2, paragraph 13, seeks to promote contact between a child and his or her family when a child is being fostered or is in a residential establishment. It empowers local authorities to make payments to parents to cover travel costs and so on in order to visit the child. I should be glad to know whether "residential establishments" are held to include hospitals. Many local hospitals are being closed with the result that the children are more likely to be in regional units and so some distance from the parental home. Thus some parents could find the cost of visiting children in hospital prohibitive. I hope that that point may also be considered with sympathy.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, this important Bill merits the balanced response it has received from these Benches and elsewhere in the House. We welcome much in it that is good but deprecate what concerns us as possibly bad. My party's concern for child care is long established. A Labour government were responsible for the Children Act 1948 which provided that local authorities' decisions concerning children in their care had to be taken so as to foster the welfare of the child. In 1969 the Family Law Reform Act extended the ancient, highly valued jurisdiction of the High Court in wardship cases. It enabled the High Court in proper cases to commit a child to local authority care. In the same year there was the Children and Young Persons Act. Approved schools were abolished and community homes established for children in care.
The next Labour government brought forward the Children Act 1975 containing many beneficial reforms. It prevented the wrongful removal of children from foster care by unfeeling parents and others through the introduction of custodianship. There was also the humanitarian change that children could be freed for adoption before placement with a new family; this avoided the
522
anguish of a child's removal from a new home because an adoption application failed.
It is from this background that we are ready to welcome generously what is beneficial in the Bill. That does not require us to be silent about the provisions of the Bill which we are concerned will devalue the quality of hearings affecting the welfare of children. Let me list some of the principal benefits of the Bill, observing that these will either involve no money or that the cost will be met by savings elsewhere. It is right for example that the prize of custody, with the attendant right to control the child's life, should go and that it should be replaced by the new residence and contact order. However, too much should not be looked for from a change of name. The unreasonable divorced parent will continue to be unreasonable and the reasonable, reasonable, whatever the change of name.
The improved rights of parents to have regular access to their children in local authority care are welcome; they cost nothing. We welcome the enhanced rights of fathers of illegitimate children. We observe that those rights likewise will cost no money. Where new money will have to be expended, often it is not central government that will foot the Bill. The provisions of Part III are an elaborate exercise in passing responsibility away from central government. A broad range of facilities for needy children are to be made available by local authorities, but with no help from central government. Local authorities are required to,
"facilitate the provision [of the services] by others".
So, although represented as progressive reform by central government, this is a comprehensive exercise in passing down responsibility to others and to voluntary bodies in particular.
The provisions of the Bill which cause great concern, however, are those whose purpose is to save money at the expense of the quality of proceedings that affect children's lives. Broadly, in the compulsory care field, the present position is that a local authority can invoke the ancient wardship jurisdiction of the High Court in difficult cases. Parents' access to this beneficial jurisdiction has been restricted by three decisions of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity—restrictions which called down criticism from the European Court of Human Rights and resulted in substantial damages against the Government. One solution which should be considered is to put down amendments to throw open the High Court both to local authorities and parents in wardship proceedings.
Your Lordships will recall the growing alarm—many have referred to it—last summer following the removal into care of large numbers of children in Cleveland. It has to be remembered that it was the High Court in its wardship jurisdiction that brought swift, objective and expert investigation to bear on this problem. It ensured the immediate return of children to their parents when that was the proper course. So it was to this ancient and strong jurisdiction that the pleas of the parents were addressed after they had been rejected both by the local authority and the magistrates.
It is to the credit of Cleveland that it submitted to this jurisdiction. If it had not, the parents could not

523
as of right have had the merits of their cases considered by the High Court. The general effect of these three decisions is that the High Court must decline jurisdiction unless the local authority consents. It is for consideration whether the proper remedy is to liberate the High Court from these restraints so that it can deal with these cases either at the instance of parents or of the local authority.
What the Bill does by Clause 71 is to restrict, and, I fear, in practice to abolish access by local authorities to the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court. If that is right, equality is created not by granting equal access to the High Court's wardship jurisdiction but by denying access to it. I have not ignored Clause 71(4). In Committee we intend to open up the clause to critical analysis to demonstrate that in practice it will have no real content and so, in substance, the High Court's jurisdiction will be ousted in care cases.
Some candour is to be found in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill which states that,
"There will be savings from the transfer of most local authority wardship applications to care proceedings in lower courts".
My concern is that for the word "most" we should read "all" or "practically all". One asks therefore: why is the High Court's wardship jurisdiction effectively being sidelined? It is always revealing to trace ideas back to their source. The source is not the Law Commission, not the Government White Paper, and especially not the report of the Cleveland committee chaired by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss which was emphatic, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, reminded us, that wardship should continue to play a role in care proceedings. The report also made the point, as I have, that parents should have the right to initiate wardship proceedings.
The source is as obvious as it is depressing. The Treasury thinks that money can be saved. Ministers have made no secret of the fact that any extra costs resulting from the Bill will be offset by savings achieved in the use of the High Court's wardship jurisdiction. Is that not a false economy? It cannot be said too often that we all have one childhood only. Today's abused children can too easily become tomorrow's abusing parents.
I believe I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that under the new dispensation, appropriate complex cases will continue to benefit from the High Court's wardship proceedings. That is an undertaking that we shall be concerned to clarify in Committee. We wish to understand fully what the noble and learned Lord anticipates will be secured in practice. Allied to this restriction, if not ouster, of the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court, are the new procedures to which other noble Lords have called attention for determining where care cases are to be decided.
I fear that the thumbprints of the Treasury are all too visible upon Clause 69. This provides that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may, by rules of court, require particular cases to begin only in the county court or only in the magistrate's court. What is more, even the noble and learned Lord does
524
not have a free hand. He must secure the agreement of the Secretary of State before making any such rules. That is provided in Clause 69(4) to which the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Campbell of Alloway, have already drawn attention.
I was heartened to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, indicate that an amendment will be tabled to the effect that the rules will not be subject to the veto of the Secretary of State. So far as I am aware, he rightly described it as being unprecedented. It is as unprecedented as it is unexplained, and I shall be interested to know the reason for the veto. I am sure that I should he able to tell from the Bill, but I am unable to identify who is the Secretary of State whose agreement must be secured before the rules of court may be made. Is it one Secretary of State—perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Services—or more than one Secretary of State? Information will be welcome on that issue.
We fear that the ultimate decision on where these critical cases concerning children are decided will be made not by Parliament, not by the judges regulating their procedures as they think best in the interests of children, not even by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but by the Secretary of State, whoever he may be.
I predict that hereafter the vast majority of such cases will be directed to the magistrates' court, some to the county court and scarcely any at all to the High Court. We shall look with great care at the amendments tabled to the Bill which I believe I heard the noble and learned Lord say he envisages being brought forward in this context.
I hasten to add that we on these Benches, like noble Lords elsewhere in the House have the greatest respect for the voluntary work of the magistracy and for the system of lay justice, particularly in the criminal field. However, care cases are very different. They are often lengthy and rightly so. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will permit me to borrow her graphic expression, and I do so not only in the context to which she referred in her notable speech. Children need "unhurried time".
Care cases frequently occupy three or four continuous days of court time. There is often complex and conflicting paediatric and psychiatric evidence. It must be tested by cross-examination and carefully evaluated. That is no luxury: it is done in order to secure the right future for the child. The decision may involve the permanent severance of any connection with the child's parents. It can result in the child being grafted on to a new family, taking a new name as an adopted child. The judges of the Family Division command the confidence and respect of all parties—losers as well as winners. I repeat that that is not to say that the magistrates would not give themselves conscientiously to such cases—of course they would. However, they would be the first to acknowledge how acutely difficult such cases are, and the special expertise and evaluation of expert evidence for which they call. But also—and this is so important a point when public confidence is uniquely in issue—magistrates do not generally give their reasons in such cases. They can be compelled to do so if an appeal is desired. Meanwhile, the decision

525
applies without reasons; although when they emerge the decision may be seen not to be tenable. How can the parties have confidence in the decision, or know whether they should appeal, without first knowing the reasons?
The High Court's decisions are meticulously reasoned. They are of the quality required by the crucial importance of such cases. It may be said that the High Court is a Rolls-Royce system, but I say that in crisis that is what our children deserve. The costs are recouped overwhelmingly in better citizens. In Committee we shall be looking with the greatest care to discover what is the real role which is intended to remain for the High Court in care cases.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, in my view the Bill has been touched with the wisdom of Solomon. We have heard from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, with his perspicacity and powers of prognosis, what we are to expect from the Bill. I listened with tremendous interest during the 31 minutes that he took to explain this vital Bill. It is a milestone in child care and there has been a need for it to be brought before the country for a long time. It changes a great deal but it does not change the fundamental care that we have, should have and hope to have for all our children. It states that the child is paramount and that the child's wishes are also paramount. That is vital.
Many words of wisdom have been spoken in this House this afternoon. I shall not try to emulate them because the night is getting on and your Lordships have other business to deal with. I shall merely comment on some of the ideas which have been put forward. With my knowledge as a mother, a grandmother, a magistrate, and so forth, I believe that it is one of the best Bills that has come before this House during the 17 years of my membership.
I used to sit in the juvenile court and I am pleased to see that in future such cases will be heard by the domestic court, in which I also sat. I am pleased to see that the fathers of the children will be taken into consideration, whether or not they are married to the mother. So often the court makes an order that the father shall support the child. Whether he does so does not often fall within the jurisdiction of the court. The fathers leave the court having been told that they must pay for the child but they consider that they have little access and rarely see the child again. I believe that to be fundamentally wrong because the father is as much a parent of the child as is the mother. Therefore I welcome Clause 4.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about the emergency protection order, and I should also like to query that. I believe that those who make the emergency protection order, and the time taken to serve it, are vitally important matters for the child. Therefore, perhaps my noble and learned friend could furnish me with an answer to that. As one noble Lord rightly said, the domestic panels will need more training than they already have, though in my experience they are nearly always made up of married people and also of parents. I believe that they should always be made up of parents.
526
The noble and wise Lord, Lord Seebohm, talked to us about the under-fives, who are also one of my priorities. I am very glad that the Government have taken up that matter. In emphasising this point the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, seemed to think, I hope wrongly—and I am almost certain that he is wrong—that money will come into it more than the care of the child. I am sorry that he is not here, but he emphasised and re-emphasised tha.: money was to be very much at the forefront of the Government's thinking.
As regards the under-fives, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, put the case very much better than I could. However, unmarried mothers of children under five live a particularly difficult, stressful and unhappy life. My noble friend Lady Faithfull reiterated that in her brilliant speech. Mothers of young children are with them all day and all night. Those children are not always good; they have tempers, and so on. Tempers in the family become very strained and sometimes there is friction. As we know only too well, the stepfather or perhaps the boyfriend of the mother becomes jealous and fed up with the child and there is then trouble in the home.
I believe that the guardian ad litem is a very important post. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, they should be independent people. As I am chairman of the National Association of Widows I feel very strongly that some widowed mothers might be very good guardians ad litem, but independence of the local authority is one of the most important factors.
In all those matters and in the implementation of the Bill, time, as other noble Lords have said, is of the essence; not only time in bringing the Bill forward and implementing it but also time in courts; time, as other noble Lords have said, where the parent or parents are worried about what will happen to their child. I wish that I was still chairman of my domestic court because on its behalf I should have liked to say that the magistracy, if it is to be the first court to hear the cases of problems within the home, will sit well into the night to solve the problems of small children and their future. I say that although I do not now sit in the domestic courts.
This Bill is vitally important for future generations. I believe that it is the most important Bill to which I have had the privilege of listening in your Lordships' House, and I certainly wish it well.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I begin my remarks by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, when she says that this is an important Bill. I believe that the House will agree that we have had a useful debate this afternoon in which we have heard a variety of points of considerable interest which will no doubt influence the future development of the Bill as it goes through the House. The Bill has been generally welcomed. My noble friend Lord Meston made it very clear that we, on these Benches, fully support it even if we have a reservation or two about some of the many propositions contained in it.
This is a very comprehensive measure replacing seven Acts of Parliament in a single regime of law. On

527
these Benches we have one major regret about it; that is, that we have not yet arrived at a situation where there is established a family court. We are not quite clear whether the provisions contained in the Bill, that is, the new flexibility with regard to the particular court in which a case is started concerning arrangements for transfer between different courts, is in lieu of a family court or whether it is preparing the ground for it. I am encouraged to believe from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said this afternoon that it is the latter but at present we do not know and we shall be looking very closely at that matter.
The Bill secures a balance between parents' responsibilities, children's rights and social workers' duties. The report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss has undoubtedly been influential in determining the provisions of the Bill even though it has not been accepted entirely, as is evidenced by the fact that there is no office of child protection in the Bill. However there are many things in the Bill which seek to do that which the report suggested might be done by that office.
I should like briefly to mention four points which have been touched on by other speakers but on which I believe it is worth spending extra time. Clause 20 puts a duty on local authorities to prepare young people who have been in care for independence. It is not clear whether that would include housing. I very much hope that it does. However, the principal point which I should like to make is broader than that. It seems that the responsibility for income support is moving from social security to the personal social services; that is, income support for those people who have been in care.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned, it is rather interesting that Barnardo's has today issued a statement in which it says that young people leaving local authority care are finding it difficult to survive under the new social security regulations. At the same time as there is that feeling on the social security side, there is the special provision on the personal social services side and there seems to be a shift from one to the other. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that that shift is not altogether desirable and it would be better to keep the financial provisions under one hat, as it were, and to keep the other provisions separate from that.
The second point I should like to make is in connection with guardians ad litem. At the beginning of our debate this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, stressed the importance of the independence of the guardian ad litem. The Law Society and the National Childrens Bureau have issued statements making that same point. There seem to be worries that this is an area which should be looked at. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might say something about that in his reply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred to the under-fives. The Bill merely gives a power to local authorities to deal with this matter—a general provision for those children under five. It is not a duty so they do not
528
have to do anything and I am inclined to fear—perhaps I am taking a slightly more pessimistic view of this aspect than the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve—that nothing much is likely to change for the under-fives; that is, those who are not marked out as being in need although as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, all children under five are in a type of need.
My fourth point is that made by my noble friend Lord Meston, and by others, on the doubt which exists about whether children are to retain full party status in the proceedings resulting from this Bill. Perhaps that point can be made clear beyond doubt.
In conclusion, I return to the point concerning resources mentioned by my noble friend Lord Meston, the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others. They stressed the fact that this is basic to the success of the Bill. Between £4 million and £11 million is stated as the likely cost of the provisions in this Bill. Compared with the £150 billion that we spend each year that seems to be a very modest amount. The question is whether it is too modest. New duties are being put on local authorities and they have to take preventive measures. We are all agreed that there is a need for training, particularly training in co-operation between different services. There are many new orders and it is possible that when the Bill becomes law there could be at the outset a rush in the demand for these new orders. The question is whether the lower courts can cope with such a rush. Some of them have great difficulty in coping with the present burden and if they are to cope with a larger burden they will need resources.
I believe that it is the case that in some areas the Law Society will only deal with legal aid matters on the telephone if they are really urgent. They have to be left if they are not of immediate urgency. Delays may result in the long run.
The provision of resources will determine when the Bill is implemented. I believe that it is true that some sections of the Child Care Act 1975 were not implemented before they were repealed. Clearly, we do not want a repetition of that situation. Therefore, what I am saying—it has been said by others but it needs to be said again and again—is that in the long run resources will determine whether the Bill is the success which we believe it deserves to be.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this has been a debate of high quality, and happily entirely on non-party lines. That augers well for the remaining stages of this important Bill. It is a great relief to me that we are not arguing across the House, but that all of us are arguing in the interests of children.
We have a unique opportunity to carry out a much-needed reform of child care law. Of course, many people throughout the country will say, "And about time too". In fact, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, virtually said that. However, it must be done well in law, in practice, in resources and in training. If we carry through what looks like a good law but do not put the resources behind it, we shall not be forgiven. We cannot carry

529
out the terms of a Bill like this, or a law as it will become, unless we are prepared to back it up with the resources and training that are clearly needed. It will be a long time before we have another opportunity for a fundamental change in our law and we must get it right now.
I had the privilege and was fortunate enough to be a Member of the House of Commons Select Committee during 1982 and 1983 when all the evidence was taken on which the report was produced after the 1983 election. It came out on 24th March 1984, but the conclusions were based on the evidence taken when I was on the committee. Although time has passed, the timing of this Bill is apposite. In my view, it is essential that we should have the considered views of some of the most recent reports—I have in mind the Cleveland report and the admirable presentation of that report by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. We are grateful to her for that report as well as to those who produced the reports on Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile and Tyra Henry. Indeed, we are also grateful for the reports of the Law Commission, the Lord Chancellor's Office, the White Paper in January 1987 and, as I said, the Select Committee itself which, after all, set in hand this overall review of child care law.
Doubts and some concern have been expressed that the Bill does not implement the recommendations on family courts. I agree with that concern. I recognise that there are a number of clauses which acknowledge the need for changes in the structure of courts and the combining of family and child care legislation. However, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and others who have spoken. I am not clear whether we have been provided with a substitute for family courts or are paving the way for some later legislation. I hope that this can be tidied up not only in the information which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give us but by the debates that will take place during later stages of the Bill.
One of the most powerful conclusions that I reached when serving on the Select Committee and I visited Scotland was the benefit which came, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said, from the atmosphere of the family courts. That is something from which we in England can learn. If we cannot learn it now, then I do not understand why we cannot do so. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will make clear that point when he replies to the debate.
It is in my view a happy coincidence that this Second Reading debate comes just a few days before the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which lays down the basic principles that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state, and that no one including children shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Of course, it was only a few days ago that some of us attended the launching of the United Nations draft convention on the rights of the child. I am certain that people in other parts of the world will watch the progress of this Bill for what they may be able to learn from it.
530
The Department of Health has reported that nearly 40,000 children and teenagers are on the child protection register in England alone. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which helped over 50,000 children in 1986 and 1987, has reported that more than one-third of these children were under five years of age. It revealed a 21 per cent. increase in registrations of sexual abuse, and a 25 per cent. increase in physical abuse and severe injuries. We see the size of the problem.
To put the matter further into context, the majority who are in care—I do not believe this will be doubted by many of your Lordships—are not there so much because of their behaviour or characteristics but because of circumstances beyond their control. The reason may be parental neglect, ill-treatment or abuse; it may be that parents are unable to cope with the care of their children, or the problem may be parental illness. The children may be orphaned or abandoned; or there may be unsatisfactory home conditions. In many cases, the blame is not simply on the parents but on a society that still permits such unsatisfactory social conditions to exist.
We hope that this Bill will not only deal with the situation in terms of law, but that the provisions made for local authorities may improve some of the conditions in which our children live. The care system is designed primarily to provide protection for children against adult society rather than the protection of society against children.
Speakers in today's debate have reflected the general acceptance that this legislation is crucially important. Most speakers have welcomed the provisions contained in the Bill. There has been a general welcome for the principle that the child's welfare must be paramount and that the wishes and feelings of the child must be taken fully into account. There has been a welcome, particularly for the wider parental rights to appeal and to have contact with children. In my view, the Bill strikes a reasonable balance between the child's rights and those of the parents. There has been a welcome for the greater responsibilities given to local authorities in Part III of the Bill to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to give support to the families.
Like most noble Lords who have spoken on this subject, I have the gravest doubts as to whether the funds allocated in the financial memorandum are anything like adequate to meet the demands. I am not simply looking at those demands that will be made upon the social service departments. If they are to do the job the funds have to be there. I am also looking at the question as regards the courts. By the praise of the Bill we must be wary that we are not misleading the public because we cannot fulfil our tasks unless the funds are there.
There has been a welcome for many other aspects of the Bill including the new eight-day emergency protection order contained in Clause 38 instead of the much-criticised place of safety order. There is also welcome for the parental right to challenge such orders after 72 hours plus the new rights of access during the crucial period of separation. There are also the new grounds for making care orders in

531
Clause 28 and these proposals are also to be welcomed. There is emphasis on the risk of removal of children from the mother. That was a point made very strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in what I believed was a quite admirable speech. We owe her a very great debt of gratitude not just for that speech, but for her record of service in this field and the work that she has done on this Bill. I believe that her efforts will help to make it a better Bill by the time it has passed through all the stages in your Lordships' House.
I also welcome the provision for unmarried couples to make a formal agreement for joint parental responsibility of the child. In addition I welcome the reform of the law on private fostering. As so many other noble Lords have said I include the greater use of the guardian ad litem system. It is encouraging that a training framework for panel members is also mentioned. Although subject to regulation, I trust that children will continue to be parties to proceedings. As my noble friend Lady David said, we would welcome an explicit statement of the duties of guardians ad litem and in particular upon the guardians' ability to instruct a solicitor.
The debate has shown that not only is there a welcome for the Bill, but that we are going to have a very energetic and detailed Committee stage. In the process of this debate, many important proposals have been made. In the meeting today to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred, there are so many voluntary organisations to which we are extremely grateful for the service that they give. I am not going to run through the list of the organisations for fear of missing out any one of them. They have done a remarkable job. It shows that we are going to have a hard time and there is no harm in that.
I am sure that there will be a debate on the family courts. I support some of the points made by the noble Baroness in her speech, and I do so en passant because she dealt with them so well. I refer to the need for a multi-discipline assessment process, and for this to be in the Bill. I cannot emphasise more strongly than she did the importance of the training of social workers and the present inadequacy of their training for a task which is so responsible. I join with others in paying tribute to the social workers who often work under very severe conditions.
The Gillick case recognised the right of young people to make decisions about their lives if they are mature enough to understand the implications of the decisions. As my noble friend Lady David said, I hope that we shall carefully explore the proposals that courts and local authorities be placed under a duty to ensure that where they are satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision about the issue in question, in certain conditions they shall be entitled to determine it. Young people should have a share in the responsibility for their own welfare.
I understand that the Government propose to ban corporal punishment by regulation in child care institutions. We must be certain that this power covers not only child care placements but also those in private mental homes, foster care institutions and
532
others. This a a matter that should not be left without attention. Part II deals with children in families and other proceedings and it carries through most important proposals from the Law Commission. Though there is much to welcome, we shall want to explore the children's right directly to participate in the decisions in ways that will recognise and strengthen the rights of children. We need to strengthen in a variety of ways the role of local authorities in protecting the rights of children in care and for those who are leaving care who may be particularly vulnerable.
Clause 20 places a duty upon local authorities to prepare young people in care for independence and to offer assistance after they have left. That is also going to cost money. The clause is unspecific as regards the duty upon local authorities to assist with housing. In addition, while I am strongly in favour of not imposing social work support on young people after they have left care, a more gradual process of reaching independence is required. One of the matters that we discussed in some depth in the Select Committee with the young representatives of those who have had the experience of being in care was the importance of preparing the way for independence for such young people.
I have taken only three minutes so far which is very encouraging for the rest of my very long presentation. I am much concerned by what seems to be a denial to children in care proceedings to have their own legal representation. I hope that this is a point with which we shall be able to deal at the Committee stage.
I ask what has happened to the child assessment order which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It was recommended in the Kimberly Carlile report. I share also the concern of the children's legal centre about voluntary and private homes being able to lock up children. We must consider in what way this matter can be dealt with in the legislation. I also ask what has happened to the report by 16 organisations which formed the group called Law Reform of Children Day Care. The group submitted a series of detailed proposals which we shall need to consider in Committee. What about the White Paper on Child Care and Family Services which proposed to amend the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948?
I have touched on, though rapidly, just a few of the issues which we shall want to explore in the later stages of the Bill. Together with comments made by noble Lords, there is enough to show that we shall have a busy time in Committee. We want to send the Bill to another place greatly improved, recognising the qualities which it has within it. I believe that there are qualities in this House which can ensure that we send to another place a Bill even more worthy of the acclaim that it has received during the course of today's debate.
6.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken during the debate. On this occasion I think I can claim unanimity in welcoming the Bill in principle, although I recognise the problems raised in

533
connection with it by a number of noble Lords. I shall try to emulate the wonderful presentation in three minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I doubt whether I shall be able to cover as many points as he did in that time. Your Lordships will appreciate, I am sure, that a number of the matters are most suitably dealt with in Committee. It would be wearisome for me to try to deal with all those matters now. However, there are some leading matters with which I should like to deal briefly.
First, an important issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. As your Lordships will know, she had no reason for feeling any difficulty about speaking after five lawyers because issues concerning children are issues for us all. In what she said she showed a special knowledge of a number of the areas. She asked whether children's views should always be heard and generally prevail. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was inclined to think that that might cause difficulty. Those of us who have had experience of dealing with these cases know that children may be expressing, in answer to questions, not their own view but the last view expressed to them by the parent to whom they feel greater loyalty at that moment. It is a fact that a child may feel torn by considerations of that kind. In a sense both of these views are clearly right, but they are right in the particular circumstances in which they are expressed.
In the Bill we have tried to deal with this delicate matter in an appropriate way. We have stated the general principle about the paramount consideration being the child's welfare. Everyone agrees that that is correct. Then we put, in the forefront of the particular circumstances, in Clause 1(2)(a),
"the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned".
That, in a sense, is the point of the noble Baroness, Lady David. She said that the court should have regard in particular to the child's wishes. We also have to try to deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. That we have done by the portion in brackets:
"(considered in the light of his age and understanding)".
It may be that other matters have to be considered as well. This is an attempt to give a lead, so far as one can do in the words of legislation, in dealing with this difficult problem, recognising the child as a person with wishes and feelings that may be ascertainable, but recognising also that these may be influenced by the circumstances in which the child is placed, his youth and his level of understanding.
We can look at this matter in Committee to see whether the way it is put in the Bill is the best way or whether it can be improved. I shall be extremely willing to hear proposals for improvement of the Bill in any respect. That would only be right in accordance with the spirit which has been manifested in the debate. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he said that it was a debate of the highest possible standard. It is my wish to take advantage of all the help your Lordships can give to improve the Bill still further.
While I am on the subject of the child and the child's views, I should like to make it clear that it is intended that the rules of court which would appropriately deal with that matter will contain a
534
provision for maintaining the status quo in respect of legal representation of the child. Therefore the Private Member's measure in that respect will not be lost.
Reference was made to the position of grandparents. At present, grandparents participate by virtue of the 1986 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston referred, without the necessity of obtaining any order. In future, grandparents and foster parents as well as any person who would lose rights and who wishes to obtain an order will be able to apply to the court. I have already said that the child will be a party. Clause 36 deals with the position of guardians ad litem. Their position will be strengthened by the provisions for the Secretary of State for Health to deal with arrangements for the management of panels, giving them some independence from the local authority.
The crux of the detail under Clause 7 is that the various orders are more concrete and deal with more particular matters than the present orders; for example, the varieties of custody to which we have been accustomed. I am not aware of any difficulty in international respects in this connection. However, the noble Lord having raised the point, I shall look at it further.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke with special authority, having regard to his greater experience in these matters. All noble Lords who spoke have relevant experience, which is one of the great values in our discussions here. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the paramountcy principle should apply in matrimonial proceedings. In so far as this Bill deals with children affected by matrimonial proceedings, the paramountcy principle will apply. I rather think that the noble and learned Lord was wondering whether the paramountcy principle should not have effect in respect of all the orders that we make in relation to a divorce; and whether this principle should not have some effect in, as it were, trying to keep the family together instead of allowing a divorce to take place in the circumstances envisaged in the present law. That is a large and difficult subject. As was acknowledged, it lies outside, or is at least peripheral, to, the concerns with which the Bill seeks to deal. I venture to think that that is perhaps a matter for another occasion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Another Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, says, perhaps—indeed certainly—for another Bill, if and when sufficient agreement is reached on these difficult matters.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, asked that the Bill's provisions should be implemented without delay. As your Lordships will appreciate, I am keen that the Bill's provisions should be implemented as soon as possible. These reforms are necessary. Of course the first step is to get parliamentary approval for the Bill. It is certainly our intention so far as possible to implement the whole B.11 as a package; but I cannot guarantee that now. There are circumstances which we cannot completely foresee. A good deal of preparation is required in the making of

535
the necessary arrangements before the Bill can come into effect. I would think that from 12 to 18 months from Royal Assent would probably be necessary for that purpose. However, your Lordships may take it that I would certainly like to see the Bill, if and when it becomes law, brought into effect as soon as possible.
Many of your Lordships have raised questions about resources and I think it is right to say that the responsibility for providing or seeing to the provision of the necessary resources is one which lies upon those who are elected to the other place. The Estimates for the public service are laid before them and therefore it is their responsibility to provide the necessary resources. When your Lordships pass this Bill, probably the last thing in the formal proceedings before the Bill is passed will be the incorporation into it of the privilege amendment; so matters of resources are finally matters for which others have responsibility.
This Bill has been preceded by a great deal of consultation and we believe that the estimates of extra expenditure and savings attributable to the Bill are realistically stated. Obviously there is always an element of uncertainty in these matters, when changes in responsibilities and practice as major as those proposed in this Bill come into effect.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, in view of the great concern in all parts of your Lordships' House about the question of resources, would agree to put his very powerful weight in Cabinet and elsewhere on the priority which this House give to expenditure on the provisions of this Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to say that I am committed to this Bill and desire to see it carried into effect; that may be an adequate answer to the noble Lord.
I turn now briefly to the question of guardians ad litem and the possible interrelation between them and the Official Solicitor: this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. My department and I, as the Lord Chancellor put out a consultation document Improving the Arrangements for Care Proceedings following the Cleveland report, where a child protection office was mentioned. I am not intending to proceed with that, as matters stand at present, in the light of the consultation. However, I believe that some of the principles that were discussed there can be given effect in other ways by building on existing arrangements, including the guardians ad litem system. The proposals we are making are intended to strengthen that system and to make it more effective and more co-ordinated. Clause36(8) merely acknowledges that the Official Solicitor could still be appointed in High Court proceedings instead of a guardian ad litem. There is no prejudice to the existing powers in that respect.
I believe that the regulations contemplated in the Bill providing for collaborative arrangements for jointly managing panels between authorities will have the effect of giving the guardians ad litem more independence from the local authorities in question,
536
and it would not be necessary to go to the length of a national organisation. I hope we have got the necessary result without doing that. The total number of guardians ad litem may be less than one would like and the expenditure provisions make an assumption that some additional guardians ad litem will be required.
A number of your Lordships raised questions about the training of social workers. This is obviously an important area, and I would certainly like to say from my own personal point of view that I appreciate the difficulties in which social workers can be placed. I have participated in one of the inquiries that took place in Scotland following the sad death of a child. That and other experiences gave me some insight into the difficulties they face, and I do not think that anyone who knows anything about it would be other than sympathetic towards social workers and their difficulties, recognising that social workers, like most of the rest of us, are fallible and may make mistakes; and that their mistakes, like those of others, can have very sad and costly results. Having said all that, we must recognise the difficulties under which they work and acknowledge that they cope with those difficulties generally remarkably well.
However, against that it has to be said that the need for training must be emphasised. The Government accept the need to improve training for social workers and other social services staff. We believe this requires a balanced programme. One million pounds of additional funding in the current financial year has been provided to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. From 1988—89 and from 1989—90 high priority will be given to improving practice placements, with a minimum of two years' training for postgraduate students. These and other initiatives, particularly the training support programme, I believe demonstrate the Government's intention to make very significant improvements to training. In his response to the Butler-Sloss inquiry report, the Minister for Health announced a further grant of £7 million in support of provision of £10 million for the training support progamme, for improvements to training for staff working in the field of child care, with an intitial concentration on child sex abuse.
We intend to work with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work on a framework for qualifying and post-qualifying training. We prefer an approach which aims to make the best use of the existing resources deployed on post-qualifying training which identifies and gives priority to the gaps which most urgently need to be addressed.
A number of your Lordships—I think perhaps particularly those who are concerned with the procedures in courts of law—raised the question of the wardship jurisdiction. As I said at the outset, we consider that the Law Commission was right not to seek to propose any reform at this stage of the law relating to wardship. But I want to emphasise that one of the changes we have made in this Bill is that the High Court and the county court are now available to hear child care cases. Until now, child care cases were dealt with by the magistrates' courts.

537
I have also mentioned that the intention is that the child care cases in the magistrates' courts should be dealt with by the domestic panel. That means that the expertise of the Family Division and the registrars of the Family Division will be available to deal with child care cases. That is the correct way for these courts to become involved. What has happened in the past, as I understand it, is that because only the magistrates were competent to deal with child care cases, those people—and local authorities in particular—who sought to get into the High Court had to do so not by seeking a child care order directly but by invoking the wardship jurisdiction. It seems much better and more direct to provide proper procedures for dealing with child care applications, and that is what we have done. I mentioned that it is proposed by amendment to introduce an appeal provision. The idea will be to match the case, its complexity, difficulty, and so on, to the particular expertise and level of the court to which the case goes.
This brings me to say just a word or two about the family court and about Scotland, because of course your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I have a considerable appreciation of the arrangements made in Scotland. This illustrates the difficulty of understanding precisely what those who use the phrase "family court" mean by it. Those who say that we have a family court in Scotland are referring, I think, to the arrangements for the children's panel, a children's hearing in which orders for care are made.
One of the fundamentals of that structure is that the jurisdiction to make an order arises only on the basis of particular grounds. There must be a basis for making the order. That basis will of course have a content of fact. If all the parties concerned admit the facts, then the panel may immediately consider making an order. It does so in an informal atmosphere. The issues on the merits have by that time been resolved and the basis of the panel's jurisdiction has been established. However, if any party to the proceedings disputes that basis, the matter is dealt with in the sheriff's court as a matter of contested fact in the same way—speaking generally and subject to special rules— as any other contested matter would be dealt with before the sheriff. That is not precisely what everyone in England means when they speak of a family court. Different arrangements are envisaged.
An arrangement such as that I have just described could be operated under the Bill's provisions, but one of the consequences of such an arrangement is that the tribunal deciding what to do about making an order is not involved in the detail of the contest on the facts. Some people here have told me that they feel that that would be a rather sad loss and there is something to be said for the court which looks into the facts and decides contested issues being the same as the one which decides what to do. There are important problems to be addressed. I have tried to say here not that we have a substitute for the family court or that we are laying foundations for it, setting those alternatives against one another, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was inclined to do; but in the Bill we are trying to develop, on the basis of structures that we know, a suitable mechanism to deal, in the first instance, with child care cases.
538
The simpler cases will be dealt with by the magistrates. There is provision for parts of cases to be dealt with in different ways from other parts so that flexibility of the kind that I have described could be involved. The next level of court (the county court) is available to deal with more complex cases. Finally, at the summit, there is the High Court with the Family Division judges with their expertise I also indicated that in my view there was scope for the county court judges who would deal with such cases to be judges who have made a special study of those matters.
In the Bill we have provided the framework for effective arrangements, particularly as experience and practice develop, and with flexible rules of court being capable of improvement in the light of experience.
The noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Campbell of Alloway, were somewhat disturbed to think that the Lord Chancellor should be at the mercy of a Secretary of State in relation to the making of rules. The Secretary of State for the Home Office is responsible for the magistrates' courts in this country. Therefore, arrangements in connection with the magistrates' courts would normally be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Office. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the county courts and the High Court. There is therefore a boundary which is the reason for that provision. We may be able to make that plainer. The constitutional convention is that the Secretary of State is referred to, and the Secretary of State who makes the order depends upon all the circumstances. I believe that to be the proper formulation.
When I said what I did about the family court in my opening remarks, I was saying that we have delivered, in the way that I have explained, a considerable improvement in the arrangements for dealing with child care cases, capable of being extended to all cases involving children. I believe this meets many, not all, of the objectives which those who have supported the family courts campaign have set for themselves. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for all the work that she has done in that connection. She has been kind enough of course to discuss many of the ideas with me. I hope that I have benefited from the discussions. I hope that perhaps the Bill has also benefited from them.
There are one or two other matters which may be slightly more detailed. My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about the social and educational care of children and the position with regard to joint assessment. That is intended to be provided for by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. My noble friend may have something else in mind, but that provision seemed to me possibly to cover what she mentioned.
The provisions in Part III to which. I referred, place an emphasis on trying to keep the child within the family. Of course where there is a problem in the family, that may present particular difficulties, but the emphasis remains. I should also like to remind your Lordships of the passage in Clause 1(4) to which I referred, which provides that there should be no order unless making the order would benefit the child. An order to remove a child from the mother

539
could not be made unless it was shown to be of benefit to the child.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull told us that when she made inquiries of the father, he normally left the house. Her inquiries were obviously extremely effective and social workers of that calibre are much in demand.
The under-fives have been referred to. Clause 16 relates to that matter. In particular I wish to mention the situation with regard to the Home Office taking the lead which was contained in the press report to which my noble friend referred. It is always difficult to know precisely what is in issue, but as far as I can make out, that press report is a reference to a ministerial group on women's issues chaired by a Home Office Minister out of concern for equal opportunities, which is part of Home Office responsibility. There is in no way a change of responsibility for the under-fives. The Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science retain their responsibilities for the under-fives. That was merely an illustration of the type of inter-departmental co-operation that all your Lordships would welcome and which is always our aim.
The Government share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, about the importance of services for the under-fives. We have set out for the first time in Clause 16 a general duty on local authorities in that connection. We shall be tabling some amendments to modernise the 1948 Act which deals with the registration of private and voluntary facilities. Together, they will amount to a modern statement of the statutory provisions.
Those were the main matters of principle dealt with. I must refer to Clause 23 in connection with what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said about Clauses 20 and 23. Clause 20 has to do with after care or leaving care when people are being prepared for leaving the care of the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, inquired whether Clause 20 would cover housing. The answer is, I think, that it is directed to the social service committee but the housing authority is among those who are expected to co-operate in that matter under Clause 23. I believe that the problem is addressed in the Bill.
The final matter I should like to mention is one of some detail but it is important; namely, the medical assessment orders to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred. A proposal for a medical assessment order was put forward in the report on the Kimberly Carlile case. We have always been anxious that separate orders for dealing with children about whom there is concern might be confusing and could result in potentially serious misjudgments by the local authority—or even by the court—as to which was the appropriate order in particular cases. In a real emergency, going for the softer option which would not provide immediate protection for the child could be very serious for the child. If one thought that there was a serious problem and one went for the lesser order, it might be found that by the time the order was enforced it was too late to prevent major harm.
540
Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in her report on the Cleveland inquiry was also concerned about the risk of confusion. I think it must be taken into account. There are cases where persuading the parents to agree that the child should be examined is a problem. If this cannot be negotiated, and if the local authority considers that, as a result, there is an emergency, it could apply for an emergency protection order and ask the court for a direction on a medical examination under Clause 37(4). Thus, in that way, one would have the best of both situations. If a medical assesment were needed it could be provided that way and if as a result some protection were required it would be given. I believe that we have dealt with that matter in the Bill. Obviously I shall be very interested to examine the matter further when we discuss the Bill in Committee.
I have taken a little longer than Lord Ennals' three minutes, I fear, but I have tried to deal with the main matters raised by your Lordships in the debate this evening. I am extremely grateful for all the remarks and for the interest your Lordships have taken, as well as the commendation which noble Lords have given to the Bill. Therefore, with some confidence I move that the Bill he read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Regional Airports: Intercontinental Services
7.2 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to promote direct intercontinental air services to regional airports in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was prompted to take an interest in this subject because although I have spoken on transport matters over the past 20 years, this is the first time I have taken to the skies. It is a fairly salutary experience.
After a recent visit to Australia, returning on a 24-hour flight, I was diverted to an airport on the continent because London was fog bound. That made me think of the much better weather record which many of our regional airports enjoy. It led me to ask why we could not make better use of them for intercontinental scheduled services. Indeed, I noticed that when I was checking in at Sydney to come to London there was a flight from there to Manchester —but via London! This must be very irritating for the northbound passenger. Upon looking further into the matter, I discovered that there are a number of problems which our regional airports appear to be having in getting intercontinental services. I therefore felt that the issue was sufficiently important for us to debate today or at a suitable time.
I see several benefits from having more long-distance air services to regional airports as well as to London. First, it would help to relieve the congestion in the skies over the South-East and on the ground at the London airports. Every passenger coming from Glasgow or Newcastle to Heathrow in order to fly out again contributes two passenger movements in each direction at Heathrow which could be avoided.
Secondly, it would meet demand. For example, last year half a million passengers from Manchester's catchment area flew to the United States of America, mostly via Heathrow or possibly by using an airport on the continent. These are not just business travellers but also people visiting friends and relatives and, of course, tourists who are travelling further and further afield.
Thirdly, it would help to strengthen and consolidate the economic position of the regions themselves. These benefits are impressive. Airports and air services generate real jobs, both at the airports and throughout the regions. Improving regional accessibility to overseas markets means that both manufacturers and service industries in the regions are better able to compete abroad. Finally, the tourist industry benefits and expands and, again, this helps reduce pressure on tourist facilities here in London. It has been calculated that every 10,000 passengers create seven jobs at the airport and 10 in total.
We do, of course, have a number of splendid regional airports which stand comparison in efficiency, facilities and friendliness with any in the world. Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham and Newcastle are but four of many. Manchester in particular is well located because over 35 per cent. of the population of Great Britain and 60 per cent. of manufacturing industry are within two hours' drive of Manchester. Your Lordships will well know that there are many better roads in the north than in the south. Also communications are better and long may they be so. That is a point to remember.
Let us consider Manchester. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, is present and Liverpool is not very far from Manchester so I hope that he does not mind me taking Manchester. An inspection of the timetable for that city shows that it has some intercontinental services to Australia, Singapore, New York, Chicago, Canada and India. One is very pleased to see that British Airways will soon start a service to Islamabad. It is to be congratulated for that after four years of hard work. Many of these flights go via London and are simply extensions of London flights. That leads to problems because of congestion in London. It has been reported to me that British Airways' London-Manchester-New York service was on average two hours late leaving Manchester during the summer because of delays en route in London. In contrast, the American Airlines' direct flight to Chicago was on average less than 30 minutes late.
The airlines have recognised the benefits of using our regional airports and actually want to start more such services. It is not as if we are dealing with an imaginary problem. Three American airlines, for instance, would like to start direct services from either New York or Boston to Manchester but, so I am told, have been refused licences. We have the demand, we have potential suppliers but we cannot get the services off the ground! I mention Manchester because its development in this respect is most advanced. However, other regional airports face the same problem.
I understand that British airlines have objected to the American licence applications. In 1985 we legislated to end licensing for bus services and I spent many hours sitting on the red cushions here during those debates. This is consistent with the Government's policy of fostering competition. I can now see no justification for restricting airlines that are perfectly willing to put themselves to the test of the market. In the long run, letting these airlines go to Manchester will be in the country's commercial interests because otherwise they will use continental airports as their gateways. Amsterdam is already a major gateway. I know of Japanese businessmen who fly between Tokyo and Newcastle via Amsterdam. We do not want to lose these services to the continent when their major objective is in the United Kingdom.
We have a successful precedent in the UK-Canada agreement which, I have recently been told, has resulted in an excellent agreement which gives access to several airports including Leeds-Bradford, Cardiff, Manchester and Newcastle. Full power is due to the Government on this achievement. I congratulate the Government also, and I hope that they can repeat the achievement with the American services because many other airlines are watching these negotiations. If they are successful, they will follow. Indeed, there are two other carriers waiting to see how the negotiations develop before making formal applications.
I am sure that we need a speedy and successful conclusion to these negotiations. They have been going on for a long time. Similar negotiations with Hong Kong have been going on for two years, with a government—a government, and also a colony—which is extremely friendly to the United Kingdom. If this takes two years with Hong Kong, I wonder how long it will take with o1her nations.
Therefore, I wish to ask what the Government are doing to encourage direct intercontinental services to the regional airports, and to overcome the problems being faced in the case of Manchester in particular. I understand that talks have been held and have been adjourned. I am grateful that my noble friend will reply to the debate instead of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. However, I gather that at this very moment my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara is probably uttering exactly the same words in Bristol as the Minister will use in his reply. I hope that he is enjoying himself there. However, I am delighted to have my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip replying this evening. I should not want the Minister or anyone else to prejudice the outcome of the talks in any way. I hope the Minister will be able to give the House a full progress report and advise us if any progress has been made. There are two speakers before my noble friend replies; but, nevertheless, I look forward to hearing his reply.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all of us when I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for giving us an opportunity this evening to debate the present situation regarding regional airports and the intercontinental airlines. I do not think that anybody who makes a habit of attending

543
aviation debates in this House needed to be psychic to guess that Manchester would form a strong part of the noble Lord's case. The noble Lord made the Manchester case very well, although I always have a slight reservation whenever the number of people living within two hours' drive of Manchester is mentioned, because of course if they all take advantage of Manchester they will penalise their local airports. We must never forget that.
One should partly explore this matter in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, did as regards the benefits that can accrue to the provincial airports. But one must not forget that there is a national issue and a national interest involved too. As the noble Lord said, increased services must lead to an increased number of airport-related jobs. That must be a clear economic benefit. After saying that, the noble Lord mentioned that tourism would benefit. I agree totally with him there. There are other benefits. The noble Lord touched on the fact that passengers would not have to go through foreign airports. He mentioned air traffic control. I am a little "iffy" about that matter. Those of us who had the pleasure of attending the very excellent presentation given by the Civil Aviation Authority early last week perhaps realise that the air traffic control problem is not uniquely a South-Eastern one. It catches our attention because a lot of us travel from the South-East, and because the South-East is that areaof Britain where people flying from provincial airports have to transit, in passing to the South. They inevitably get delayed there if any foreign air traffic controllers go on strike, work-to-rule or indulge in any of the other infinite number of what one might call Spanish customs, which they are wont to do.
If one had been present at the CAA presentation one would realise that the air traffic control problem is not limited to the South-East of England; it is spreading nationwide. We were also reminded that above Britain, and above what one might call the London and provincial skies, there is a vast amount of transatlantic traffic flying north and south which puts a ceiling on the air traffic position in England itself. There is the additional problem that much of the military's training is carried out in the west of the island of Britian, but the aircraft are based in the east. So there is a cross-flow.
I mention those things simply to demonstrate that to argue that diversion of traffic, or rather creation of traffic to provincial airports—that is what we are really talking about, and that is what the question concerns—will ameliorate the problem in the South-East is not an argument that I find totally acceptable.
There is another advantage which the noble Lord touched on, but only touched on, when he mentioned competition. I believe that fares might react to competitive pressure and to greater choice by coming down. We would all welcome that. My Scottish tourism colleagues, in particular, feel disadvantaged by the lack of what is known as "common rating" within the UK. They have seen some attempts at intercontinental services. They have seen some of those attempts stand and some of them fall. That only proves that demand cannot be taken for granted.
544
However, in a changing tourism world, my colleagues argue that the Australians, for example, who used to come to Britain and indeed to Europe on a once in a lifetime trip, now come for shorter but more frequent visits. They now make three, four, five or six visits. If they wish to visit London and then go to Paris, they can probably go to Paris at absolutely no extra cost because London and Paris are common-rated by the airlines. But if they come to London and wish to go to Glasgow, they may find themselves paying £360, for example, in additional costs simply for the air trip up and down the country. There I feel, as I have said, that the development of additional intercontinental services, if the demand exists, will help the situation because it will reduce fares.
I realise that that is not entirely a matter for the Government, who are mentioned in the Question, in the sense that it is a commercial judgment. But nonetheless I believe that what the Government decide to do and what the Government achieve could affect fares and could bring them down. That would be to the benefit of all of us, and to the benefit of the provincial airports.
There are many other smaller arguments that one could advance for the regional airports. But now I should rather turn to what I call the national case, which I believe is an equally strong one. There are two major planks to my platform. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who in opening an airports debate—it may have been a Second Reading debate on the Airports Bill itself—reminded us some years ago that we had not only the world's favourite airline but, in London, the world's busiest international airports. The economic case which these three entities make for themselves, and the contribution they make to the nation's economy, seem to me at least as strong as any economic case that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I could agree in respect of intercontinental services going to the regional airports.
It is further strengthened, in the national sense that I am following, by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned, which was that we are in heavy competition with Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris, to name but three of the major overseas airports. Any weakening of the London position in that context might be to the disadvantage of the nation as a whole in this very heavy competition.
Further, there is the issue of deregulation. I think we would all agree that Britain leads Europe in deregulation, and that Europe and America probably lead the rest of the world in deregulation. Perhaps one day we may see total and unilateral global deregulation. However, I do not think that will occur for many decades yet. Until we have that we must live with the many countries which practise regulation of their air services, and we must compete in regulated markets. I feel that the Government have a duty, whether it is in the context of the national interest or indeed that of the provincial one, of defending the interests of our carriers in that still regulated field.
If we give intercontinental airlines increased access, either to London or to the regional airports, I hope that the Government will continue to make sure that we get something in return. We must not

545
simply be seen to give, we must also, quite cynically, be seen to take once in a while. What, for example, could we ask for from the United States of America? We could ask for additional points of entry. There are British airlines who are seeking additional points of entry. We could look for a reduction in the break of gauge freedom which the American intercontinental airlines enjoy in terms of flying 747s to international hubs like London and then scattering passengers on to places like West Germany or Scandinavia. We could look at enhanced access to computer reservation systems to enable British carriers better to position themselves in foreign markets. It is difficult for a foreign carrier to position itself in a market which is not its own in which it is inevitably competing head to head with the dominant local airline.
As I said, I support the regional case. However, I still say that it must be seen as part of a national issue rather than as a parochial one. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, reminded us last week in response to an oral Question, the Government's policy is to continue to attempt to negotiate agreements which will increase the number of services to and from regional airports. Providing that the Government continue to make sure that in this regulated world we get a quid for a quo, that policy is one that I wholeheartedly support and I look forward to my friends in the regions reaping the benefits.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and although it is not usual to come back when one has already had a crack at the subject, I should like to raise one point. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned that I said that regional airports would relieve the South-East. I agree with most of what he said in his speech but I should like to say that it was not a question of relieving the South-East; I drew attention to the fact that 35 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom as a whole came from the North-West. Therefore it was not a question of alleviating the problem in the South-East.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I picked up that remark by the noble Lord. I think that he referred to people who live within two hours of Manchester airport. I said that we must be very careful because two hours from Manchester airport brings one very close to the South-East. In seeking to build up Manchester airport one must therefore be very careful that one does not do so to the detriment of Birmingham, which he mentioned earlier in his remarks.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position. It may be that any speech made this evening will be of no use whatsoever. The Minister has been asked a Question, and it may be that he will tell us that the Government will do all that they possibly can to satisfy our demands. The Minister is nodding; so I suppose that I could sit down and say that we have what we want.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, this is a national as well as a regional issue. Eggs have been
546
in the limelight recently. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The truth is that airports will not function properly unless there is demand. It is ironic that the last time the noble Lord and I spoke in a debate we concentrated on whether or not there should be national plans for our transport infrastructure. If ever a transport function required to be looked at from a national point of view, it is airports.
The great tragedy is that no one in a responsible position in this country over the past 40 years has been prepared to grasp the nettle. No one has been prepared to say that because of the restricted size of the United Kingdom and the thousands of miles to Australia, Canada or Japan, it does not matter much to the international traveller whether between airports there are a few hundred miles, 50 miles or even—if I can come closer to home—the distance between Liverpool and Manchester airports. One can move from Liverpool airport to Manchester airport five times more quickly than one can travel through the area of Merseyside; they are that close.
In the North-West there is need to look at the situation objectively and to recognise that Manchester will expand. I should like the Minister to tell us that the Government will win on the issue of the applications for three additional international flights at Manchester. That is vital. It will be another step along the road of development at Manchester until finally we reach the situation where Manchester, like Heathrow, is too congested. Those in control at Manchester will then realise how justified has been the shouting over the last 20 years or so that Manchester and Liverpool airports be considered as one part of the infrastructure of air travel of the North-West.
My only regret is that when that time arrives it will not be possible for Manchester and Liverpool to work together because this Government's policy may well have taken Speke airport out of the realm of public planning. It may well be that if the airport is privatised someone will come along arid close it down and make a pile of money out of the land asset of that area. Once again we shall have lost a wonderful opportunity to develop a proper infrastructure in the North-West that would also meet the national need.
Perhaps I can remind the House and those interested in airport infrastructure that we lost a godsent opportunity at Burtonwood where there was a complete runway already on site. That would have been one of the finest airports in the whole of Europe. It had enabled the American air force to fight the war in Europe. We closed it because the governments of the day were so short-sighted that they allowed the coal board to undermine a massive runway for a few hundred tons of coal that produced an immediate gain. They ignored the long-term view.
That takes me back to the days when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, served with me on the North-West Economic Planning Council. We said to the Government that that should be a plan for the North-West. Not only did the Government refuse to accept that point of view; they also abolished the planning council because it was becoming too awkward.

547
When the question of Stansted was being hotly debated, it was discussed in that same council, made up not only of Labour members but consisting of representatives of the whole range of commercial enterprise in the North-West. The council came to the view that Stansted was not on and that the third London airport should not be created there because, as has been argued today, it would add to the congestion that would ultimately strangle the South-East. That was also the argument I advanced in this House over the question of London Docklands and Canary Wharf. No one takes any notice.
We said that if there had to be a third national airport—we insisted on calling it a national airport—it should be somewhere near the centre of England. It should be linked to the M 1 just above Milton Keynes. The name escapes me at the moment. That would have been the most sensible place. But no! The powers-that-be in the South-East wanted it much nearer; so they got Stansted. Now the South-East will get something else, which has nothing to do with airports. A new town will be developed; then another new town will be developed. The congestion we have seen today in some parts of London, and which we saw last week around this House, will get considerably worse because no government, no person and no party is really tackling the job of planning our national infrastructure.
I am not blaming everyone in the South-East. At this very moment there are vested interests in Manchester which look upon Speke as a rash upon the face of the North-West. They want nothing to do with it. They will learn in the very near future that that it is a very sadly mistaken policy. If we are to be successful we need that extra runway in the North-West.
I revert to the theme of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Does the airport encourage employment or does the installation of manufacturing or other kinds of industry that generate employment and economic activity create the need for the airport? Of course the answer is the latter.
London Airport was sited where the economic activity of the United Kingdom is or was sited. Now the economic activity of the South-East is beginning to kill itself. In this House we warned that one terminal could not handle the extra traffic generated by the Channel Tunnel. The proposal was opposed by the defenders of the private enterprise system, free competition and deregulation. "No," they said, "we will handle it." Now, however, two terminals are wanted. The matter will not end there. There will be another terminal.
As yet no attempt has been made by this Government to relieve the pressure in the South-East. In the North we do not by any means denigrate or wish to reduce the potential of the capital. We merely point out that if the resources in the North are not used and pressure in the South-East is not relieved, then the South-East will kill itself, because there are Amsterdam and Paris. On television the other day I saw that the Bourse in Paris is already preparing to compete with the great financial centre
548
of London. Of course it is. Unless there is more assistance given to private enterprise and to the financial world in London by relieving some of the congestion and pressures, there is a very real danger—as I said in this House nine years ago—of the economic activity jumping from the South-East of England into the golden triangle of Europe: Amsterdam, Paris and Continental cities. That danger is there and will remain until people grasp the significance of planning the infrastructure of an airport and its site.
I make no apology for saying that one of the greatest causes of congestion is the direct employment by this Government of people who have no need to work in the South-East. There is a decent air service and a very good rail service from the north of the country into London for Ministers who go to see their departments. In any case, in these days of modern communications there is physically no need for them to travel in order to stay in touch with their departments. To solve the problem of congestion in the South-East one must not just focus on one specific aspect. One must take in the whole planning concept and make sure that the plan embraces the rest of the country.
So the real area of economic activity of the United Kingdom covers 200 miles. And we must see that in a world context, where it is only the size of a pocket handkerchief. We have to be very careful in our planning. We must always ensure that any further economic activity that is generated takes place in the northern parts of this country. If we do not, the final result will be that the South-East will be too congested; and the private sector—about which this Government likes to boast—will not hesitate at all to move toward the biggest money. If that "biggest money" happens to be in Europe, that is where it will go. If the South-East begins to learn that lesson, God help the North, because the North will be condemned to be a land of dereliction such as has never before been seen in this country.
I support entirely the case made for moving activity into the regional airports, but also we must generate the activity that is required by the airports, which means moving people, jobs and resources out of the South-East. It already has too much.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, although I have not put my name on the list of speakers for this debate, I should like to join in supporting many of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Much of what I had intended to say has already been said by my noble friend Lord Sefton, but I should like to speak from the point of view of a practical user of Manchester Airport.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about the situation at Speke. Last week I had the opportunity to say so during an oral question to the Minister. So far as I am concerned Speke and Manchester airports are one airport and should have been one for many years. I believe that they could still become one airport and hope that they will not miss the opportunity of joining together one day, the sooner the better.

549
I speak to your Lordships today as a user. I am a director of a joint venture company with Chinese partners, which means that I have to go to China three times a year. I travel from Blackburn, my home town, down to London and then from London 1 go to Heathrow or Gatwick. It takes me eight hours to get there and eight hours to come back. I do that three times a year. It is not always convenient to catch the Shuttle and therefore I travel by British Rail. I am a great supporter of British Rail but even though the service from the North-West is fairly good and quite adequate—well, nearly adequate—nevertheless, the inconvenience of eight hours' travelling is considerable. An air service from Manchester would make the journey much more easy and much more profitable and would save the dickens of a lot of time.
While the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, was speaking I was reminded of the fact that during the course of this year I travelled to China twice, Hong Kong twice, Bombay once, Washington once and once to Kuala Lumpur. I regret that I have not been to Glasgow. On no occasion was I able to obtain a direct flight from Manchester to my destination. If that is my experience during the course of one year, how much is it the experience of others, time and again? I should like to echo the plea for more international airlines operating out of Manchester. I suppose that the same plea could be made for other places in the regions. This does not just apply to Manchester although it is my particular case.
I should also like to correct one or two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, regarding the road and rail services around Manchester. I wish that it were as easy to reach Manchester airport from certain parts of the region as the noble Lord made out. Going over Barton Bridge or the viaduct takes much longer than he says it does at the present time. However the roadworks are only temporary and when they are completed the journey will be much quicker than it is now. Nevertheless, the structure is there to enable a speedier passage to the airports.
I also support the plea of noble Lord, Lord Sefton, for greater use of Speke airport.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for tabling this Unstarred Question. But for this debate I would have been at the JACOLA (the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities) conference which, as has been mentioned, is meeting now at Bristol. In fact, the minister for transport, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is speaking there tonight. We are however delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, is to reply to us tonight on behalf of the Government.
We have the advantage of previously stated views and replies to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and the supplementary questions subsequently raised in this House as recently as 30th November, about the encouragement that should be given to provincial airports. In readiness for this debate I thought that it might be useful to see what had been said previously by Ministers. I have
550
therefore re-read the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which opened and closed the debate on 5th July 1988 on the White Paper, Airports Policy. Again I thought it worth while looking at the debate on the Second Reading of the Airports Bill on 21st April 1986, which was opened and closed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. There were references to runway capacity, terminal capacities and air transport movements, but little or no mention of air space capacity. Yet now it is generally accepted that the important problem in particular to the South-East is the availability of safe airspace capacity.
That is one reason why we on these Benches have congratulated the Minister on the efforts that he has been making in Europe with regard to Eurocontrol. On 30th November the Minister reminded the House that the Civil Aviation Authority has been asked for its advice by July next arising from a review which it is to undertake of airport capacity. I naturally assume—I dare not do otherwise in view of what my noble friends who sit behind me have said— that the CAA will deal with the position of the United Kingdom as a whole, not merely that of the South-East.
I have in mind extracts of a CAA memorandum to the House of Commons Transport Committee on air traffic movement in the UK, document CAP-537 published only on 26th April of this year. That memorandum dismissed a misconception that the problem of airspace congestion could be reduced by simply increasing runway capacity, a point that I have made time and again from this Dispatch Box. Paragraph 24.4 of the document published in April this year clearly argued that increased runway capacity does not reduce airspace congestion in the London terminal control area.
The final paragraph of that memorandum stresses that any possible measures that may be taken cannot be painless. Although the CAA is prepared to play its full part, it will be necessary for the Government to provide a clear and coherent policy which will require decisions to be taken. That was only seven months ago. I agree with my noble friends who sit behind me that the Government have some very important decisions to take which they must take.
Ministers have often referred to the role of regional airports. I readily recognise the approval that has been given of special capital development schemes. But surely more must be done; it can be done.
Following the 1986 Airports Act, 16 of the largest local authority-owned airports have been established as public airport companies. Surely following that there should be some relaxation of their borrowing powers. There have been murmurings of possible compulsory privatisation of these local authority-owned public airport companies. I hope that the Minister will he able to give a definite assurance tonight that there is no intention to make local authorities dispose of these new public airport companies which are now registered under the Companies Act. These 16 public airport companies must be able to plan for the future and murmurings of privatisation will do no good. That is linked to the whole question of regional airport development.

551
Following this debate, I trust that the Minister, the Department of Transport and the CAA will take another look at Section 6 of the White Paper, Airports Policy, on regional airports. Although it is often stressed that most passengers using South-East airports emanate from the South-East I draw attention to paragraph 12.11 of the White Paper. It states:
"The Government recognise that too many travellers from the regions are forced to use the South-East airports".
The document went on to point out the important part that air transport licensing policies play in the use of regional airports.
On 8th May 1987—I know the date only too well because it is my birthday; I do not forget that!—when the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and I spoke on an order to limit the aircraft movements at Stansted, I said that sooner or later there would have to be a stop to the building of concrete jungles throughout the South-East of England. I expressed a regret that although some 31 bodies had been consulted about that order, there had been no consultation either with JACOLA or the North of England Regional Consortium. I should like the Minister to give an undertaking—I am certain he will—to urge on the CAA in the review it is now to undertake that these two bodies will be included in the consultation. That is essential.
The Minister is speaking tonight at the JACOLA Conference. I am sure that there will be useful discussion with him and from him. I hope we shall hear that he has dealt with some of the important points affecting regional airports that are raised, first, in a guide recently issued by JACOLA; and, secondly, on a policy statement issued by that authority to which I shall refer before I close.
I am not a representative of JACOLA. However, I believe that its pressure for regional airports is common sense, and an issue in which my party and I believe. The statement by JACOLA says:
"The Joint Committee continues to monitor developments in Europe in the light of the European Commission's liberalisation policy to ensure that maximum benefits are achieved for regional airports".
Let us remember that 1992 is not a long way off. The development of regional airports in this liberalisation policy must play a very important part.
Is sufficient being done to encourage the use of regional airports in bilateral agreements? I know that we have recognised some successes in this House. With regard to Manchester, three American airlines have requested an increase to frequency of movements into Manchester. It has been said that apart from revenue to the Manchester Airport it would bring 1 million extra passengers and possibly help the regional economy to the tune of £100 million. There is grave danger in pressing for Manchester because if we are not careful we shall have not only intense rivalry and competition between Manchester and the South-East, but intense competition with regard to proper planning between the different airports outside the South-East; and that must be avoided.
I also remind the House that written into the 1986 Act is the duty placed upon the CAA,
552
"to have regard to the need to secure the sound development of civil aviation throughout the United Kingdom".
Those words were inserted in the 1986 Act deliberately, I believe, from an amendment which the Government eventually accepted. It is vital that in any plan that is made we consider civil aviation not just in the South-East and London area but for the nation as a whole, not only in regional airport development but what effect such development might have on the economy in various parts of the country.
The Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities has recently issued an excellent policy statement. What it stresses must from my point of view include the four BAA airports in Scotland. By regional airports we do not just mean local authority airports, so we must take into consideration four important airports owned by the BAA in Scotland.
It would be simpler if, instead of using my own words, I quote from the introduction of the JACOLA policy statement:
"The Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities recommends that the Department of Transport, the Civil Aviation Authority, JACOLA and the aviation industry—
that includes both airlines and airports—
"should work closely together in formulating and implementing positive steps to ensure that the potential contribution of airports outside the Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted system to meeting the UK's air transport needs is more fully exploited. Such joint action is essential in order to"—
Four points are made, and I believe JACOLA's words are much better than anything I could use. The first is to:
"satisfy the air transport needs of the travelling public in the most effective, efficient and accessible way; [secondly, to] prevent any worsening of the environmental and land-based transport congestion problems in the London area as a result of the concentration of airport development there; [thirdly, to] enable the regions to maximise the economic development, land use and other transportation benefits of airport development; [and, fourthly, to] ensure that the UK obtains maximum benefits from the EC aviation liberalisation measures".
I am certain that few noble Lords in the House would disagree with those four points, but they are matters which must be kept in mind in answering the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and in properly planning a national policy for airports, not only including the South-East and Manchester but also taking into consideration all the airports needed for the development of the economy in different areas of this country.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for asking this Question. I remind your Lordships that my noble friend asked specifically what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote direct intercontinental air services to regional airports in the United Kingdom. I shall now attempt to answer that Question.
It also provides an ideal opportunity not only to explain the Government's policy on the expansion of services from our regional airports but to demonstrate how successful that policy has been. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara would of course have liked to answer this debate himself, but, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, he had a long-standing engagement to address

553
JACOLA at its conference in Bristol. This committee represents the owners of the majority of the regional airports, and I have no doubt that my noble friend will at this moment be discussing many of the topics that have been raised this evening.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, together with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for their contributions to the debate, although it went on for slightly longer than I expected and at one stage became rather more lively than I had anticipated. Some of the matters which have been raised fell rather wide of the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. I shall, however, comment briefly on three questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Sefton.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked for an assurance about privatisation. The Government are keen to see the introduction of private capital into airports owned by local authorities. The Airports Act 1986 enables authorities to dispose of company securities as they think fit, but it does not require disposal. The Government have no present plans to take such powers. The noble Lord also asked that the CAA should consult JACOLA and other organisations. I have no doubt that the CAA will take account of the views of all parties interested in the matter.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that the Stansted development was needed to meet demand in the South-East, but regional airports development is also needed to meet demand there. I should remind him that the CAA is due to report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in July 1989 on the requirements for United Kingdom airport capacity to the year 2005.
In 1985 the Government published their airports policy White Paper, which confirmed unequivocally our commitment to encourage the use and development of our regional airports so that they can meet the maximum demand they can attract. But of course this policy objective is not only intended to benefit the airports themselves. Increased opportunities must be created for airlines, both domestic and foreign, if airports are to expand. This, in turn, will provide the consumer with a wider choice, both in terms of destinations served and frequency of services.
Both the Government and the regional airports have a role to play in achieving this objective. It is for the airport managements successfully to persuade airlines that new services to their particular airport are not only economically viable but represent a better alternative than increasing their existing services to the already congested London airports system. Where traffic rights do not exist, airports should make it clear to airlines and through them to foreign governments that such rights are worth negotiating for.
The Government's role, on the other hand, is clearly set out in the White Paper. We are committed to creating wider opportunities for airlines when conditions of competition are fair and British interests are not prejudiced. Our success in meeting
554
this commitment is perhaps best exemplified by our recent air services agreement with Canada. Now, both Canadian and UK designated airlines are completely free to operate services between any airport in either country's territory. This has largely resulted in a significant increase in intercontinental services from our regional airports. During 1988, Leeds-Bradford, Cardiff and Newcastle have all offered regular scheduled services to Toronto. Other regional airports, such as Manchester and Prestwick, also offered services to other Canadian destinations such as Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Halifax.
More generally, over the past decade traffic at regional airports has grown by 92 per cent. compared with only 59 per cent. at BAA's London airports. Growth at Manchester has been over 150 per cent. and scheduled services are now operated from Manchester to over 60 foreign destinations, including services to eight points in North America and the Caribbean, and to eight other intercontinental destinations. Prestwick now has services to six North American cities.
However, there are examples where, despite these endeavours, the Government have as yet been unable to negotiate wider opportunities for airlines to service our regional airports. Your Lordships will no doubt appreciate that we have yet to negotiate satisfactory arrangements for an increase in the current level of services from Manchester to Singapore and the commencement of services by US carriers from New York and Boston to Manchester.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but he just mentioned services to Manchester from all those places. How many direct services are there to Manchester for those foreign airports; or are they via London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend the answer to that, but I will write to him. I could find the answer, but it would take me time and I think my noble friend would rather I go on with my speech.
We are currently examining the possiblity of introducing more liberal air services arrangements with Singapore and there is to he a further meeting between the UK and the Singapore aeronautical authorities early next year.
Wider access for US carriers to serve Manchester is a complex issue. Until this year the US Government were of the view that access for US airlines to serve Manchester was not worth negotiating as their airlines had no interest in such services. But Manchester airport successfully persuaded some US carriers that Manchester and the North-West offered their own substantial market for direct services.
Intergovernmental consultations were the next step. The air services agreement between the US and the UK is founded in the principles that there is a broad balance of opportunities for each side's airlines. If the Americans were to be given more rights at Manchester, balancing concessions would be needed for UK carriers in the United States.
At negotiations in March we offered the US a very reasonable package, taking into account the benefits

555
that would accrue to Manchester and the North-West from additional US services. I shall not trouble noble Lords with the details of what we sought but our offer to the Americans was a good one. We said that we could agree to the immediate commencement of a daily non-stop service between Manchester and Boston, and a daily one-stop service between Manchester and New York. But the American team's reaction was disappointing. It would not accept any package unless we agreed to the immediate commencement of all the services it sought. That include a second daily service between Manchester and New York, that one being non-stop.
As many noble Lords will know, the immediate commencement of a service on the New York-Manchester route by two large US carriers would have been disastrous for British Airways' fledgling daily service on that route. Manchester Airport, which was consulted frequently during the course of those negotiations, had advised that the survival of BA's service was of top priority to it.
The US Government then took the view that a second round of consultations should take place no earlier than the beginning of the next year. Eventually, however, they were persuaded out of that and the second round was held last week in Washington. We are disappointed that, again, no final agreement emerged.
But last week's negotiations were not a waste of time. On the contrary, there was a useful exchange of views, and the sides explored a number of new ideas for developing an appropriate package as the basis for an agreement. A Manchester Airport representative was included in the UK delegation throughout. Discussions will continue and we shall meet again as soon as mutually possible. The US Government are now considering dates which we have proposed for further negotiations in December or early January.
556
In the meantime, both sides will further examine each other's ideas and the Government very much hope that a satisfactory settlement will be reached soon.
I noted what my noble friend Lord Teviot said about deregulation but there is an important point to be made. The US Government must be in no doubt that if a deal is to be struck they must be prepared to pay a reasonable price. We shall not be unreasonable. We see advantages for Manchester and the North-West and we shall take them into account. But there must also be advantages for UK airlines. I have no doubt that the US negotiators watched very closely the reactions of Manchester Airport and its supporters to the breakdown of talks in March. No doubt they were hoping that the Government would acquiesce in the face of that domestic pressure and give traffic rights to Manchester for nothing in return. They were mistaken. There must be mutual benefits. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, will agree.
Our policy was conceived after extensive consultation and careful consideration. We are not going to set it aside and ignore the interests of UK airlines in the highly competitive US environment. As well as those of Manchester, we must safeguard the broader interests of the country as a whole.
Allowing access to Manchester or to other regional airports for nothing in return would not be in anyone's long-term interests.
The Government and regional airports must therefore be seen to be pulling together. Of course the Government wish to increase traffic to them. But the interest of the nation as a whole demands that we have a strong aviation industry and the Government must look to their interest as well.
House adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.