Lords Sitting of 21 February 1992

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Government-Seized Goods: Auction Sales
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why government auctions of property seized by the Customs and Excise, the Official Receiver, the Collector of Taxes etc. are not advertised widely to the general public, with a view to bringing demand into balance with supply and raising more revenue for the Exchequer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, there is no central agency for government auction sales and each department make its own arrangements. Goods are generally sold by private auctioneers or brokers who are best able to judge supply and demand and provide the most cost-effective disposal. As an incentive to maximise prices auctioneers are paid a percentage of sales and are responsible for all advertising.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Despite his assurance, is it not evident that the present arrangements are amateurish and wholly cost-ineffective? Bottles of Glenfiddich Highland Malt which cost £18.99 in the shops are being sold at auction for £3.33; an electronic typewriter worth £650 for £18; and, as we read two days ago, a Lancashire businessman who owed the Inland Revenue £2,500 had his printing equipment worth £5,000 seized and sold for £45, thereby not merely ruining him but raising less than 2 per cent. of the amount owed to the Inland Revenue.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord has any evidence of impropriety, I shall be delighted to investigate it. Goods are generally second hand. If they have been through the Customs their packaging has often come off and they may sometimes be broken, and that may be why the prices sometime seem to be very low.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that people are being sold second-hand Highland Malt?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no, of course not. I am not aware of the circumstances about which the noble Lord is talking.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we obviously do not have any direct knowledge of this matter, but from what one has read in the newspapers there is at least a suggestion that, worse than impropriety, there is some illegality involved. Has the Minister any information about that? Has anything been reported to his department? Will he at least consider obtaining some
1444
information and letting us know about it? I agree that they are only newspaper stories, but they are disturbing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree that there have been some disturbing newspaper stories, but there is no evidence of any wrongdoing or illegality by Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue. If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has any information I would be delighted to hear about it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have a good point, in as much as few of your Lordships, or anyone else, ever hear of such sales in advance? We have heard with great interest about the possibility of the purchase of an agreeable stimulant at a modest price. Seriously, is that not an indication that there would be a much better market for those goods if they were fully and professionally advertised, and not left to some government department to muddle with?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that there is some misunderstanding. The amounts about which we are talking are relatively small —between £1 million and £2 million. They are often goods taken by Customs—cars, for instance. They are given to local auctioneers who then have the responsibility of advertising when the auctions are to take place. They are paid a percentage, and so it is clearly in their interests to obtain the maximum price. There is no central agency to look after the sale of government-seized goods, because that is regarded as being the most inefficient way of doing it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister agree to notify those noble Lords who have taken part in this exchange of the dates and places of the sales so that we may obtain cut-price goods?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, most auctions provide an opportunity to obtain cut-price goods. I am happy to see whether I can provide a list of where those auctions take place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are not many of the goods which are auctioned in this way goods which were seized from people who went bankrupt or companies which went into liquidation? What happens to the proceeds of the auctions? Should not they be used to reduce the indebtedness in respect of which the goods were seized?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is generally true, but the Government, in the shape of the Inland Revenue, have first call on any available funds.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister said that the goods in question are worth only £1 million to £2 million. Is he talking about their value or the sale proceeds? On the evidence that I have, the first is between five and 10 times the second.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the goods are sold at auction, which I believe is generally recognised as the best way to reach the market price.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, is there a minimum duty on auctioneers to achieve what, in their terms, is the market price? Do they, for instance, have to advertise at least once before they organise a sale?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. Generally auctioneers put the goods into general sales which they advertise in their own way. In some sales there are reserve prices, a point which is not generally understood.

London Buses: One-person Operation
11.12 a.m.
Baroness Phillips Baroness Phillips asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have held with London Transport concerning the efficiency of one-person operated buses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, decisions on the conversion of bus routes to one-person operation are a matter for London Transport. I understand that London Buses Limited considers such buses are safer because there are fewer boarding and alighting accidents and more reliable because each journey depends on the presence of one member of staff rather than two. However, London Transport intends to retain crew operation on the busiest central London routes where boarding and alighting times are most critical.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which is exactly what I expected. But I do not know why we have to express surprise or even thanks. The Government have shown great anxiety about congestion in London. We have even had debates on it. It is becoming much worse and is made so by one-man operated buses. I am interested that the Minister says that those buses are safer. Is he aware that if a driver operating a bus on his own is attacked he is much less safe than if he were in a crew operated bus?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness's anxiety about congestion is exaggerated because all types of buses only make up less than 2 per cent. of the traffic on major roads in London. Buses are themselves victims of the congestion, particularly through inconsiderate or illegal parking at bus stops or in bus lanes. As for attacks, anecdotal evidence indicates that there are more attacks on conductors than on drivers. Obviously the driver of a two-man operated bus is in his cabin. Measures of protection have been instituted for the one-person operated bus such as plastic screens and many buses have radios.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister state that in central London the usual two-man crew will operate all buses? He said that buses suffer just as much as any other vehicle on London's crowded roads. Does he agree that no other vehicle carries as many people as the London bus? Will the principle be maintained that all conductors will be trained in some
1446
form of first aid, particularly to deal with people who suffer from heart attacks or develop something else wrong when they are on the bus? At one time conductors were trained to deal with emergencies and this was a sane and worthwhile endeavour by London Transport.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the answer is no. London Buses Limited does not plan to have two-man crews on all the major central routes. However, it plans to retain crew operation on the busiest central London routes.
I agree with the noble Lord that buses are part of the solution to congestion rather than a cause of it. The operation of buses by just one person has meant that in a number of instances London Transport has been able to provide a more frequent service on the same routes, involving a cost saving which in turn attracts more passengers.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as concerns passenger safety there is great merit in one-man operated buses? I have discovered this in both London and Brighton. The driver does not start until his passengers are safely accommodated. On the other hand, conductors have an appalling habit of ringing the bell before one has reached one's seat. For an elderly and infirm person like myself this is a threat to life and limb.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. I believe that in my first Answer I said that the one-person operation has a better safety record. However, we should put that into context because all buses are a very safe form of transport and accidents are rare.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to ask one man to operate a bus and collect fares is too much? If the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, were accepted it would add to the burden. Will the noble Viscount check with London Transport the suggestion that the accident rate has decreased since the introduction of one-man buses? It is my view that it has increased considerably.
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. I tried to indicate that accidents on boarding and alighting have decreased. To answer the noble Lord's other question, most passengers (70 per cent.) now use travel passes. To that extent, conductors would not make a great deal of difference on the speed of the majority of bus journeys. Most of the people getting on buses have passes, so the driver is only concerned with taking fares from the minority of passengers.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Viscount properly answered a question posed by my noble friend about discussions with London Regional Transport. What discussions have taken place with the London Regional Passengers Committee? I ask because in a policy statement in April 1990 that committee was worried about the operation of OPO buses and made a number of suggestions that the staff should deal with other matters such as those referred to by my noble friend Lord Molloy, as well as looking after the operation of the bus. Can the noble Viscount further say whether there is any comparison between

1447
physical attacks on staff on OPO buses and on those operated by two people? Have these matters been discussed with the unions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the London Regional Passengers Committee responded to the consultation paper on deregulation put out by the Department of Transport. I believe that is what the noble Lord is interested in—the bus strategy for London. Since then meetings with Ministers have taken place in the department to discuss aspects of that consultation document. My honourable friend Mr. Freeman attended a recent committee meeting. Discussions certainly are taking place with London Regional Passengers Committee. I do not think that I can add anything to my remarks on attacks on staff. I cannot break down the figures between attacks on staff on buses where conductors are present and attacks on staff operating one-man buses.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a one-person operated bus works perfectly adequately in a city such as New York in which passengers pay one standard fare? Every passenger knows when he boards the bus what the standard fare will be. However, in an infinitely larger city such as London differential fares are levied. It is intolerable that in London queues of people form and passengers fumble for change because they do not know the fare that they have to pay. It is that situation that causes congestion. Furthermore, is it not a fact that one-person operated buses have been forced on London Transport by the Government's refusal to subsidise that organisation? Transport bodies are subsidised in every other city of renown.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the situation in New York is perhaps not easily transferred to the rather larger city of London. As I believe I have already said, on the busiest routes London Buses Limited plans to retain its crew operation. That provision takes into account the noble Lord's point about the time taken to collect fares. However, I have indicated that one-person operated buses are more cost effective. The frequency of the service can be increased along with the number of passengers carried.

Dentists' Fees
11.22 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they propose to cut the fees paid to dentists from 1st April 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we continue to negotiate with dentists' representatives and a further meeting took place yesterday afternoon. As part of those discussions we agreed to re-examine, in association with the dentists' representatives, the detailed elements of the levels of fees. At the next formal meeting in May the results of that work will be considered and the fees scale set accordingly. Meanwhile the proposed reduction in fees will not be implemented.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 10th February an 8.5 per cent. increase in dentists' income? Presumably he was fully aware that the Secretary of State for Health would announce on the same day that the 8.5 per cent, increase would in fact mean a cut of 13.8 per cent. It is obvious that the Government have now panicked and, faced with a mass exodus of dentists from the health service, they have put the matter on ice until after the general election. Does this not confirm the view widely held by dentists and their patients that the national health dentistry service is not safe in this Government's hands?
Lord Henley: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, I am not aware of the date of the election. We have put off consideration of these matters until May because that is when the next formal meeting of the body that will be examining dental fees will take place. We announced an increase in the targeted average national income of dentists of 8.5 per cent, and we stick to that. We hope to see an increase in what is known as TANI of 8.5 per cent.—that is, up to almost £36,000 —for the coming year. But over the past year we have seen what we expected to be expenditure on general dental services of £1.2 billion grow to £1.4 billion. It is not clear why the level of fees has risen quite so much. That is why we have agreed to the joint inquiry into these matters. But no responsible government could allow fees to grow quite at that rate in a quite uncontrolled manner. Therefore we consider that the best way forward would be to discuss the matter with the British Dental Association to see whether we can come forward with proposals that will lead to adequate remuneration and an increase in the TANI of 8.5 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, irrespective of whether the election will be held in early April or early May, is it not perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has simply bought off the problem and bought time until after the election, whenever that is? Will the Minister comment on the statement made yesterday by the British Dental Association that NHS dentistry is near to collapse due to the increasing number of dentists who are refusing to take patients other than private patients?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not see a growth from £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion as a sign of collapse. I can assure the noble Lord that some 76 per cent, of dentists still accept all NHS patients. Some 85 per cent, of all dentists will accept all children NHS patients.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is not the real story that dentists have treated more people in this current financial year than the Government have allowed money for? Furthermore, as inspections are required before treatment, does that not make absolute nonsense of the fears that charges are putting people off going to the dentist?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct to say that dentists are treating more people.

1449
Expenditure on NHS dental services has gone up by some 47 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and there are now 26 per cent. more dentists in Great Britain than there were in 1979.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurance that the Government are looking at this matter again. When they look at it again, will they take seriously the misgivings expressed by the British Dental Association which are shared by a great many dentists who as yet still provide the full National Health Service cover? When the Government look at this matter again, will they also reconsider the effect of the dentists contract on central London, especially as regards laboratory costs, the costs of premises and the costs of the uniform business rate, as those costs are causing severe problems in inner London?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that as well as looking into the level of expenditure and the reasons why it has grown over the past year, we have agreed simultaneously to begin a more fundamental review of the dental remuneration system as recommended by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body. One of the aims of the review will be to prevent a repetition of this current problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am relieved to hear my noble friend's statement that this matter is not just being deferred until after a general election, contrary to what was stated in The Times this morning. I am relieved to hear the matter will be examined in detail. I have been a practising dentist for over 30 years and I know that every time productivity is increased dental fees are cut by all governments. That has always been standard practice. Is it not time that the whole matter of the target average net income (TANI) was looked at because it is the word "average" that causes the problem? In some parts of the country dentists are barely surviving and dentists in certain age brackets are having problems surviving. Some dentists are doing well but we know that others are not.
Does my noble friend agree that the public suffer from misconceptions about dentists? When a target average net income of £35,000 plus is announced for the next year, the public think dentists receive that sum as a salary. However, they do not appreciate that dentists have to provide their own equipment and premises. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the uniform business rate. However, that is not relevant to this matter as dentists are now reimbursed by the Government for the uniform business rate. But all the other costs dentists face should be taken into account when considering this whole matter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments. I can appreciate the problems she expounds as regards the use of TANI. I should stress that TANI stands for targeted average net income and not national income as I said before. The important point is that it is a targeted average net income and not a gross income. It is obviously important that the public should realise that we are looking at an increase in dentists' net income—that is, their income because they are self-employed—after all
1450
their practice expenses are taken into account. Those expenses will obviously be quite substantial. However, I can see no other way of managing these matters when one is dealing with the incomes of the self-employed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are quite large areas of the country where it is not possible for patients requiring dental treatment to obtain it under the National Health Service? Will the noble Lord please explain how that squares with the responsibility of the Government to provide dental treatment under the National Health Service where it is required?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have always accepted that there might be problems in some areas. Perhaps I may repeat the figures which I gave earlier: 76 per cent. of all dentists accept all NHS patients and 85 per cent. of dentists will accept all NHS children patients. If the noble Lord is having problems in any particular area I recommend that he goes to his family health services authority. Lastly, I should have thought expenditure of £1.4 billion on dental services belies the fact that dentists are leaving the NHS in droves.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the areas where dentistry is not available in some cases salaried dental services are being set up, and does he agree that the Government, through the regional health authorities, are meeting their commitment in that way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks. As I said, if the noble Lord was having problems himself he could go to his local family health services authority and seek advice there.

Contemporary Buildings: Listing
11.30 a.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on listing contemporary buildings.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government's policy is to identify the best examples of post-World War II architecture for listing. Twenty-seven buildings of the period have been listed to date, but we believe that a more systematic approach must now be adopted to provide a firm framework for assessing important buildings. English Heritage has therefore been asked to carry out a three-year research programme into the main building types to identify key exemplars across the country and to provide guidelines for future listings. In the meantime, we are prepared to act to protect buildings of special architectural or historic interest which are at risk.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging and constructive reply. Is it not essential that we preserve not only our past heritage, but also the contributions

1451
of our own generation? Can he elaborate further on what he said about the Government's plans to act with English Heritage in that regard?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course I agree with his first point but would qualify it by saying that the listing of post-war buildings in particular is a complex and highly sensitive matter. The recent past is notoriously difficulty to judge objectively and there can be a wide divergence of views on the merits of modern buildings.
English Heritage's research is already under way. English Heritage is being advised by a panel of specialists and the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee. It will consult widely and intends to hold a seminar in July on work in progress on the first building type to be researched and on the broader issues.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of buildings which were built since the war, however well designed, were constructed with materials which have begun to deteriorate? Is there, therefore, any procedure for de-listing buildings which have once been listed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has made a very important point. Buildings should stand the test of time. It is precisely to formulate a set of principles of that kind that English Heritage has set about its task. Regarding my noble friend's specific question, yes, it is possible to de-list a listed building.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be considerable relief at his recognition of the difficulty of assessing the work of contemporary architects and at his recognition of the great danger in coming to conclusions on those buildings before time has had some effect on judgment? In illustration of that point, is he aware that the Alexander Fleming building recently inhabited by the Department of Health and Social Security—a monument to depression—was awarded a certificate of merit as an architectural gem at the time it was opened?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was aware of my noble friend's point. The case for listing Alexander Fleming House was carefully considered by Ministers in 1988 before they decided, on the advice of English Heritage, not to list the building.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
11.34 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The proposals set out in the Bill give effect to the policies for the reorganisation of further and higher education contained in the White Papers Access and Opportunity and Higher Education: A New Framework, which were published last year. They provide the framework for the achievement of a greatly expanded system of further and higher
1452
education in Scotland. We aim to increase participation and open up many more opportunities for individuals to benefit. Education has always been vital in Scotland, and we mean to ensure that access to post-school education is widely available. It is for those reasons that the Bill has been warmly welcomed by colleges and universities throughout Scotland.
Three themes run through our reforms: autonomy, access and choice. The best way of ensuring that education is tailored to meet the real needs of students is to devolve responsibility for management to institutions. The staff of those institutions, guided by representative governing bodies, are best equipped to make decisions about the day-to-day administration of their universities and colleges. The role of the centre is to provide coherence and a fair and equitable system of funding support. Our policies are aimed at achieving the right balance between local autonomy and central oversight.
If we are to increase participation, we must open up access beyond the traditional routes into further and higher education from schools. Further education is increasingly becoming an alternative stepping stone into higher education. Much more could be done to ease progression between further and higher education and we shall continue to encourage that. We have already achieved much through our support of the Scottish wider access programme and our funding support for the modularisation of Scotvec's advanced qualifications. Opening up access to those in work and those at home through open learning and part-time provision also offers scope for expansion. The moves being made to develop credit accumulation and transfer systems will stimulate that.
The third theme of our proposals is choice. We wish to encourage a diversity of provision to meet the wide range of needs of individuals. Underlying choice has to be a guarantee that individuals can be assured of quality. We are determined to safeguard standards as we expand provision. We attach importance, therefore, to our proposals to underpin quality assurance and audit. Choice also involves a measure of competition. That already exists, students choose which university or college to attend based on what is offered. That is natural and is a powerful incentive to maintain standards. It does not, however, mean that collaboration should not take place. Improving links between universities and colleges widens choice and ensures greater opportunities.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Part I deals with further education, Part II with higher education, and Part III with miscellaneous and general matters.
Clause 1 of the Bill sets out a new duty of the Secretary of State for further education, which is defined in Clause 6. That includes vocational and Scottish Examination Board qualifications, provision for those with learning difficulties and access courses to higher education. Clause 2 leaves with education authorities a duty to secure provision of community education and a power to provide that further education which is within the duty of the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that he intends to continue to provide as now financial support to local authorities

1453
through the aggregate external finance settlement for the provision of community education and for other further education outwith colleges. That safeguards this important provision. He will report to Parliament annually on the exercise of his duties for further education. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State power to fund boards of management of further education colleges and others in respect of further education. Boards will be funded on the basis of the full range of provision they currently provide, be it vocational or non-vocational. That, equally, is an important safeguard for existing provision.
Clauses 7 to 10 and Schedule 1 give the Secretary of State the power to establish by order a Scottish further education funding council which would exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, advise, assist and report to him in relation to his functions, and generally provide him with information and advice as regards the provision of further education. To maintain stability in the system such a council will not be established at 1st April 1993, when the further education colleges become self-governing. They will be funded directly by the Scottish Office Education Department, which has long experience of funding the grant-aided higher education colleges in Scotland. Once the new system settles down a future Secretary of State will be able to examine the case for a funding council, taking account of the views of the colleges.
Clause 12 and Schedule 2 provide for the duties, powers, composition and proceedings of the boards of management. Colleges already have councils with delegated powers. Membership of the new boards will be largely drawn from existing members and their new duties and powers will build on their existing delegated powers from education authorities.
Remaining provisions in Part I deal with the transfer of staff, land and property, publishing information on education provision in colleges and control and disposal of property in the run up to April 1993.
Part II of the Bill gives effect to our proposed reforms of higher education. Clauses 37 to 43 establish the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and set out its composition and main functions. Clause 39 is of particular importance. It gives the funding council a duty to make arrangements for assessing the quality of education provided by those institutions that it funds, with the advice of a quality assessment committee.
Clauses 40 and 41 cover the administration of funding by the council. Clause 42 empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to the council, subject to such conditions as he may determine. Those conditions must be general and may not be expressed so as to affect any particular institution. Clause 43 deals with the provision by the council of information and advice about Scottish higher education.
Clause 44 provides the technical means by which the Secretary of State can designate an institution providing higher education as eligible to receive funds from the council. The Secretary of State, however, cannot designate any of the existing universities. They are eligible for funding automatically. The following
1454
clause, Clause 45, transfers to the Privy Council powers relating to the governance of designated institutions. Those powers are currently exercised by the Secretary of State under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
Clause 48 allows the Privy Council to make an order conferring degree-awarding powers on institutions. Clause 49, which is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, empowers the Privy Council to approve a change of name for a designated institution, including a university title. In doing so, the Privy Council must have regard to the need to avoid names which are capable of causing confusion with the name of any other institution within the higher education sector.
Clauses 50 to 53 impose a duty on various bodies to provide the council with the information that it requires to carry out its functions. They allow the council to arrange efficiency studies and describe how the powers vested in the Privy Council may be exercised. They also provide for the inspection of accounts of universities and designated institutions by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Clause 54 requires the funding council to comply with directions contained in an order made by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the Government's higher education funding policy. He therefore requires a reserve power to issue directions to the council as a last resort. The Secretary of State may only give directions relating to specific institutions in the case of either financial mismanagement or if the financial affairs of the institution have been significantly adversely affected for some other reason. The Secretary of State must also consult the council and the institution concerned before giving such direction.
Clause 55 restates the Secretary of State's powers in relation to teacher training currently contained in the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965, and extends these to teacher training wherever it may take place, not simply in colleges of education. The remaining clauses deal with minor and technical matters.
The Bill is, above all else, about opportunity. It increases access to further and higher education for more Scots by giving greater independence to institutions to adapt and attract students. Our system of qualifications in Scotland facilitates that move to wider access. The reforms will enable the further education colleges to continue to flourish and develop ever closer links with higher education for the benefit of their students and local employers. The advantages are clearly seen by the Association of Principals of Colleges in Scotland, which welcomes and supports our proposals.
The Bill is no less important for higher education. It removes artificial and outmoded distinctions between our higher education institutions, and creates a framework to enable them to respond flexibly, efficiently and imaginatively to the needs of our economy and the aspirations of our students in the years ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Strathclyde).
11.45 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all grateful for the way in which the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not believe that a long Second Reading debate is needed. The Bill was exhaustively debated in another place. Noble Lords who have an interest in the Bill will have read, if not fully digested, the long proceedings which took place there.
This side of the House is concerned with improving the Bill. Some improvements were made to it in another place but many loose ends were left. We hope that noble Lords will assist us to tie them up. We intend to put forward important amendments in Committee in a constructive way. Knowing the reputation of this House in matters of education, we hope and expect to hear powerful arguments from across the Party spectrum. We hope to convince the Minister and the Government of the educational shortcomings of the Bill.
As the Minister said, the Bill is in two parts. The first part relates to further education, and deals with the colleges of further education. We believe that at present they are generally successfully controlled by the local education authorities. The second part of the Bill we shall remodel in a number of ways, although we are generally in support of its provisions. For instance, we are pleased that the binary divide has been at least partly removed. That is welcome, but claims that it has been totally removed are perhaps exaggerated. It has been moved rather than removed. It has been moved down the scale—if that is the right expression to use, without denigrating the colleges and polytechnics that will be left out.
We have more sympathy with the second part of the Bill than with the first part. Let me deal with that first. Four existing centrally funded colleges are to become universities and 13 others will continue as centrally funded colleges providing higher education courses. Some further education colleges will provide higher education courses with the funding for those courses being channelled through the new Higher Education Funding Council.
We are concerned that the new universities that will be created by the enactment of the Bill may not have access to research funding on an equal basis with the existing universities. That issue, which was debated in committee in the other place, was not properly addressed by the Minister of State in that debate. We believe that it is important, if the new institutions are to acquire the standing and not merely the name of a university, that the research base is strengthened.
Scotland is to have 12 universities instead of eight. The quality of that provision can be assured only if additional resources are made available to make it possible for research to continue. I do not believe that funding from industry, important though it is, can be sufficient. Twelve institutions cannot compete for resources which were previously shared by eight, without there being an adverse effect on quality. That takes no account of the parallel changes occurring in England and Wales. The funding provided by the
1456
research councils to universities operates on a UK-wide front. Those funds will be the subject of even more fierce competition.
Certainly we shall wish to have reassurance on the funding. But perhaps the most obviously important point, in particular for those who will not be involved in the details of the Bill, will be the one that has been referred to as the Bill of amendment which was contained in the English Bill. It deals with academic freedom. Amendments will be tabled covering that issue. However, I am fairly sure that the House will be pushing at an open door on that matter and that the Minister will be happy to make concessions on much the same lines as provided in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to the English Bill.
Part I of the Bill, which deals with further education, gives us much greater cause for concern. We believe that it is motivated by a desire to reduce the powers of local authorities still further. The Government have done a great deal of that during their period of office. From the Government's point of view it has also given a way of reducing local council charges by taking an important part of the education budget away from local authorities.
We believe that the Government have completely misunderstood the vital local nature of further education colleges, which, unlike central institutions, form an integral part of the regional education system. Further education colleges are much more local, with most of the students living locally. The Government's claim that choice will be greatly helped is partly true but only in the big conurbations. It would not be true in more isolated places. With regard to further education colleges a high proportion of students live at home. That limits their possible choice.
The colleges are part of the community. They are known to the people in the area through a wide range of informal education uses. They serve the interests of the whole community and should be part of what ordinary people believe their community to be. They should be locally accountable through the democratic local councils. We shall seek to press that issue on the Government again.
We believe that the Government have few friends on this part of the Bill. Even The Times Educational Supplement Scotland —which the Government have been known to quote and which the Minister referred to obliquely today in his defence—makes it clear in an article by the chairman of the Scottish branch of the Association of Principals of Colleges, on 29th November 1991, that they have grave misgivings on the Bill. The Minister stated—he probably saw me wince—that the principals of the colleges of further education were in favour of the Bill. What did Mr. Craig Brown, the chairman of the principals say? In the article he stated,
"The 1989 Act was such a flawed piece of legislation that its successor was inevitable although few people expected it so quickly."
We welcome the acceptance of amendments in another place dealing with the special needs provision of the Bill and the power of the future Secretary of State to set up a further education funding council. The latter was accepted rather grudgingly by the Minister of State in another place. Therefore, we shall

1457
be pressing the point again at Committee stage in this House. We shall also be asking questions about the proposed boards of management for further education colleges, their selection, composition and self-perpetuation because it strikes us as being a self-perpetuating quango. The Government, of course, vowed to get rid of such quangos.
There are grounds for excluding people from boards of management which are not mentioned in the schedule to the Bill. Although we accept the fact that the business community can make a very good and important contribution to the colleges of education, and perhaps those who have been on the boards have been able to help in many ways, we believe that there can be a conflict of interest with them as well as with other people on the board. We shall certainly take up that issue.
We are also concerned with the transfer of property of the colleges of education. The properties have been built out of public funds by the local authorities. They have been contributed to by local authorities and the Government. We believe that there should be some allowance to the local authority so that they do not still have debts left if the money is transferred immediately to the new set up.
We hope that this House will make amendments to Part II. We believe that it is the correct place to deal in detail with such a Bill. I am sorry that the Government did not accept the suggestion of my honourable friend in another place that the Bill would have been better had a Select Committee procedure been adopted for, let us say, three sittings to discuss some of the details of the Bill. Principals and educationists could be questioned before we debated the Bill. That would have removed a great many of the problems.
We believe that Part I is seriously flawed. We shall give every assistance to improving Part II and to getting it on the statute book. Although we shall have a number of amendments on Part I, we have no intention of deliberately holding up the Bill. We believe that the importance of Scottish education is too great to play parliamentary games. We shall give every assistance to the Minister and we hope that in return he will be able to make some concessions.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, for once Scottish legislation follows English legislation. We have ironed out many of the issues and will thus have a smoother ride than with the English Bill. We have drawn up many of our battle lines already.
On these Benches, and I hope on all sides of the House, we are very much in favour of the expansion of university status to those colleges in Scotland which undertake predominantly higher education work. However, one of the anomalies of a binary divide has been exposed in the Bill by the fact that in Scotland many of the further education colleges also take on higher education work. That may be because Scotland did not experience the expansion of the polytechnics.
1458
Therefore, many of the institutions which will take on higher education work will not become universities as they will in England.
An important question arose on the English Bill and will arise on this Bill; namely, that colleges of further education should effectively be given similar controls over their academic freedom and independence to those in the higher education sector. I was never able to understand the divide. Which was more important, further education or higher education? When two institutes undertake similar work the line once again becomes blurred. I hope that the Government will consider favourably some greater form of academic freedom for the colleges of further education along the lines of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and accepted during the debate on the English Bill. That may go against the grain. However, I hope that the Government will not totally rule the matter out of hand when they consider the somewhat different aspects of the Scottish further education sector, and the fact that the divide is not quite so distinct as it is in England.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that further education should be in the hands of local authorities and should be more strongly influenced by them than is at present provided for in the Bill. It is a rather hackneyed argument—I have heard it so many times during the debate on the previous Bill—that local authorities should be at least an even partner in the provision of further education. The local authorities look to their communities as a whole. If people have voted in such authorities, it surely makes sense to give them some input as regards the communities because the local authorities will be representing the communities' interests if they do their job properly. I hope that the Government accept that most local authorities, regardless of political colour, would be prepared to look after what they consider to be the best interests of their constituents. Moreover, as they are closer to the community, they probably have a vague idea of those best interests.
Student representation on the board has been improved. We are in favour of heads of student unions being represented on the board. However, I am not sure whether that is totally adequate. As I stated during our debates on the English Bill, the students must be regarded as the consumers and the heart of the institutions. Everything else connected with an institution is merely the bones; the students put the flesh on it. Therefore, the Government should pay far more attention to what they think.
Many adults are involved in higher education, (although there are a few people under the age of 18) and there are also people involved who are undertaking part-time work. Surely greater consideration should have been given to their input. I shall return to that matter during later stages of the Bill, as no doubt the noble Lord suspects. I hope that the Government will consider making further changes and taking further steps towards considering the attitudes of student representatives, not only those people who occupy positions within the colleges.

1459
Those involved in running a students union already have a job to do and there is a great possibility of overloading people.
The Bill has many positive attitudes, especially in respect of higher education. It eliminates a completely artificial and arbitrary line which developed by accident because it was thought that if two higher education institutions were introduced they would develop along different lines. It has become increasingly apparent that that does not work. I am in favour of Part II of the Bill and will therefore give the Government every support in getting it right. However, as regards Part I, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that we can see little justification for the removal of the provisions for further education from local control.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when an English lawyer seeks to intervene on a Bill concerned with Scottish education a word of apology and a plea for indulgence is required. I intervene for three reasons. First, I share to the full the feeling prevalent south of the Border of admiration for Scottish education, not least for Scottish higher education. At times and in certain disciplines it has led the whole world. Secondly, I share the apprehension that has been aroused by the Bill and its counterpart English Bill about academic freedom. Thirdly, I do not believe that those apprehensions can be understood without a knowledge of the common background and of what happened in relation to the English Bill.
I shall speak solely on the aspect of academic freedom relating to Clauses 42 and 54 of the Bill. Before doing so I wish to say that it is a privilege to intervene in a Bill piloted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I was an admiring colleague in the other place both of his father and his grandfather. The background to the two clauses to which I have referred goes back a long way. During the previous century there was an institution of government funding for institutions of higher education. Immediately and wisely what was called the "arm's-length" relationship was established. The Government paid the piper and was responsible to Parliament for the money that was paid, but they wisely refrained from calling the tune. Matters proceeded satisfactorily on that basis. In 1919 the arm's-length approach was institutionalised by the setting up of the University Grants Committee common to both sides of the Border. Again, that system worked satisfactorily. At one time I saw something of its working from inside the government department which was then responsible for the funding of universities and institutions of higher education.
In the Education Reform Bill 1988, which was a United Kingdom Bill, there was perceived to be a double threat to academic freedom. That has been resuscitated in the two measures to which I have referred. The Government took power to intervene in individual institutions in two ways. First, they gave directions to the funding council about how it should distribute the funds provided. Secondly, they enabled
1460
the Secretaries of State to attach conditions to the grant of funds. That was a double-barrelled weapon. Either barrel would serve the purpose of allowing the Government to intervene in the affairs of individual institutions.
It caused great alarm. The principal contest took place in the other place during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. However, Members of your Lordships' House played a considerable and important part in the controversy and in helping to achieve the concessions that were ultimately vouchsafed. Since it was a double-barrelled weapon, a safety catch had to be fitted to both barrels and that was done. Neither by direction nor by attaching conditions to grant was the Minister to be able to intervene in the affairs of individual, specific institutions. Everybody was satisfied.
However, within three years an English department brought proceedings in a case which came before Mr. Justice Simon Brown in the High Court. By using the condition-making power the Government sought to increase the accountability of staff for their time in order to ensure greater flexibility of deployment and to introduce appraisal schemes. That was obviously an interference in matters which normally fell within the administrative competence of the institution in question. The way in which the Government sought to intervene on that occasion was to withhold £13 million of the grant for 1990–91. I believe that the actual crunch came in the following year.
In the end, it came to this. Those institutions which could certify that they had satisfied the requirements of the Secretary of State would have released to them what was called their share of the £13 million; in other words, the proportionate part of that £13 million that would attach to the institution. However, those institutions which would not certify as the Secretary of State required would not receive the funds.
Mr. Justice Simon Brown had two issues to consider: whether those were conditions and, secondly, whether they were conditions which fell foul of the 1988 Act. He held, your Lordships may think inevitably, that both those conditions were satisfied. The Minister was trying to impose conditions which would have driven a coach and horses through the provisions and safeguards of the 1988 Act. It was no more than using the funding councils as a conduit pipe. It was really bypassing them and the will of the Secretary of State was to be impinged on the individual institutions. That failed. However, what was seen to be extremely alarming was that the department, having failed in the High Court, then came back and invoked those Bills to reinstate the original form of the 1988 Act; in other words, to renege on the undertakings that had been given to Parliament and specifically to the other place at Report stage.
Naturally, that aroused extremely great apprehension which was all the greater because there had been an undertaking that was gone back on. I may say that it was not an entirely one-sided arrangement because there had been considerable agitation in the other place that the powers of direction should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and not left to the

1461
ineffective negative resolution procedure. That concession having been made by the Government, the critics dropped that plea.
That was the position when those two Bills came into Parliament in this Session. As regards the counterpart of Clause 54, at the very last moment the Government made a number of concessions which were felt to be satisfactory. They are reflected in Clause 54. I say that that was done at the very last moment because amendments were tabled as starred amendments on Third Reading.
As regards the counterpart of Clause 42—the condition-imposing clause—the Government again tabled an amendment that went some way towards satisfying their critics. That had been adumbrated on Report and was thought to be inadequate. It was then withdrawn but tabled as a starred amendment on Third Reading.
As that was unsatisfactory an amendment was carried against the Government, promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, indicated, that virtually closed the loophole. Perhaps I may read the government amendment which stated:
"Such terms and conditions may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed)."
As that was inadequate your Lordships carried an amendment against the Government which added:
"or to the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students".
The extraordinary thing is that the English Secretary of State has accepted all the amendments made in your Lordships' House, including those which were carried against the Government. However, neither the Government's amendment nor the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, appears in the Scottish Bill. I venture to ask the Minister why that should be so and why a safeguard which has been written into the English Bill and accepted by the Secretary of State should not be in the Scottish Bill.
Do the Government really wish the Secretary of State to be able to interfere in the selection and appointment of academic staff or the admission of students? It would be extremely easy to picture the worst scenario that the existing loophole allows. However, perhaps that can be left to a later stage.
As I say, the English Bill and the Commons' history of it, and not least the attempt to subvert and renege on the undertakings and concessions that were made in 1988, will, I believe, cause your Lordships to scrutinise existing loopholes in this Bill with very great care.
12.18 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has no need to apologise for intervening in a debate on Scottish affairs. The benefit of his wisdom, experience and thinking on this issue has been appreciated by us all.
1462
Perhaps I may just say to him—and I shall return to Part II of the Bill in a moment—that this Bill has not been drafted in England but has been drafted by the Scottish Office. Many aspects are quite different from the English Bill and it will operate under Scottish law and not under English law, as did the law when Mr. Justice Simon Brown's judgment was given.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the improvements made to the Bill in the other place. I go further than he did. Thinking back over the nine-and-a-half years during which I have been a Member of this House, I can remember no other Scottish Bill which has been the subject of such effective and fruitful cross-party debate in another place. As a result the Bill has been greatly amended and improved in the House of Commons. A number of the amendments were far-reaching and most were agreed across the parties. At the end of the discussion in another place all parties paid tribute to the Minister on the outcome and he to them. That was a satisfactory procedure on the Bill in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said somewhat ominously that, as far as he is concerned, the battle lines on the Bill are already drawn because of the discussion on the Bill for England and Wales. But this Bill in many respects is different to that Bill. The situation in Scotland, particularly in further education, is also different. If there are battle lines—I hope there are not many—they will be different battle lines. That is an important point. I am entirely unbriefed by the Government about this. I say that from my own experience and after discussing the matter with Scottish local authorities and with Scottish college principals.
I shall begin with Part I of the Bill. It is widely recognised, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in this regard, that the expansion of vocational education and training—the obtaining of job-related qualifications and skills by more people —is crucial to Scotland's future. Dare I say that it is even more important at this time than the expansion of higher education?
For many years, certainly since I was first involved in the scene in the 1970s, it has been clear that, if they are to work closely with and respond swiftly and flexibly to the needs of industry and commerce in Scotland, colleges need a greater freedom of action than was possible within the restraints of local authority management. The 1989 legislation began that process. It strengthened the college councils, for example, and built on the experience of those that already had extra autonomy.
As a result, further education colleges have matured. Since 1985, when Napier, Glasgow Polytechnic, Robert Gordon and so on chose to free themselves from local authority control, they have flourished and expanded enormously and the quality of what they provide has greatly improved. It is clear that the other further education colleges should be allowed to benefit in the same way. In addition, it is an interesting fact which may or may not be recognised by noble Lords based south of the Border that the

1463
number of administrative awkwardnesses which this House identified in the England and Wales Bill do not exist in the same way in Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred to the fact that in Scotland young people of 16 to 18 years can choose whether to follow further education Scotvec General Certificate modules by staying on at school or by moving on to further education colleges. In fact, because there is plenty of room in many schools at present, many students are being persuaded to stay on. As a result, the number of 16 to 18 year-olds in colleges has reduced markedly. The large further education college in Dundee, the college of Mr. Craig Brown to whom the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred, now has only 9 per cent. of all its students aged under 19. The impending report of the Howie Committee may change that in some respects. But the flexibility of the modular system means that the so-called overall strategy for 16 to 18 year-olds would not be the problem that some suggest if the colleges became their own managers.
Of course the local authorities will be sorry to cease running the further education colleges. They have done it for many years and on the whole have done it well. It is natural also that the lecturers and other groups want to retain their central negotiating role with local authorities as employers. I do not blame them for wanting that. But there are new, huge responsibilities coming to local authorities. Community care, with vast budgets and time commitments and considerable cost for council tax payers, will be an important function for local government and one that is suitable for it with its extremely local nature.
Further education colleges are not quite as local as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested. People now travel further. If local authorities become smaller single-tier all-purpose authorities, further education colleges will operate more across local government boundaries than at present.
It is also extremely important for further education colleges, if they are to be able to work closely with the new enterprise councils and with employers, if they are going to be able to respond swiftly, effectively and pragmatically to the education and training needs for the world at work as those needs arise, to know their budget for the years ahead. They must be able to maximise on the use of those funds as they wish. They must control their own payroll, be able to motivate and involve their own staff and deal with their own purchasing and building maintenance. They must not have to wait sometimes for weeks for decisions which education authority officials are bound to make. They must have the scope for tight, efficient and responsive management. Even the most efficient local authority procedures cannot produce that effect. It is not the fault of local authorities; it is the nature of local government and of its responsibilities to the public. It is the way local government has to manage all its enterprises.
The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Addington, are right to voice the anxiety of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and of teachers and other unions. But on this main thrust of
1464
the Bill we must take note of the track record of the colleges which have left local authority control and give others the same scope. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to Mr. Craig Brown's article which was censured by CoSLA. I do not believe he has read it too carefully. Mr. Brown is a great enthusiast for the Bill and he and his colleagues would regard it as a disaster if it did not come into being. I can assure the noble Lord of that.
One important change made in the Bill at Report stage is the ability for the Secretary of State for Scotland of the day, when the time is right, to cease funding the further education colleges direct and to set up a further education funding council for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that he welcomed that; his party certainly welcomed it in another place. In another place the Labour Party said that it would like a date set now for its implementation. That would be possible, but I understand the principals of the colleges think that the Bill is wise to make the arrangement as it does.
If the Bill becomes law as it stands there is no way that any Secretary of State for Scotland could fail to set up a council in due course; the pressure on him would be far too great, as we all know. But some time must pass during which the colleges and the Scottish Office, with local authority help, work out the new funding mechanisms, the budgets each college will require, the interaction with the local authority funded bursaries, the funding of people who do not have bursaries, the staff that will be needed to cope with the new corporate status and so on. It would be much easier for all this to be done and a stable system set in place before the establishment of the funding council. We may want to look at this matter in Committee. It seems to me—I believe that the college principals who have to operate the system agree—that Clauses 7 to 10 as now drafted have it about right.
One anxiety has been expressed to me as regards community education. For a number of years I was chairman of the Scottish Community Education Council. During that time the professionals who worked in community education often expressed the view that community education should be defined. That is natural. They want their own field to be seen as a discrete area. That has never happened and no definition appears now in this Bill. Community education has remained an umbrella term, a part of further education which includes adult education, adult basic education, youth work and so on. In my view community education has been greatly strengthened by remaining as an umbrella term within further education. I hope that we shall not change that.
Unlike the England and Wales legislation, the Scottish Bill leaves the very important area of adult basic education, literacy and numeracy and skills education at the most basic level with local authorities where it will be funded in the normal way. At the same time further education colleges that wish to run adult basic education courses which are a preparation for other further education courses can do so and be

1465
funded through them. I understand that the local authorities, the colleges and the community education council are all happy with that arrangement.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. It seems now that the eight Scottish universities, the polytechnics and central institutions are all happy with the setting up of a separate higher education funding council for Scotland. There is a danger that the universities—for example, the University of St. Andrews; I am a member of the court of that university—which attract many students from south of the Border may have more difficulty in doing so in future. That would be greatly to the detriment of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made reference to another danger as regards funding, research and so on. We shall doubtless return to that in Committee.
On balance, it seems that to all concerned a separate Scottish funding council is the best way. I understand that the Scottish universities are now satisfied with this part of the Bill except for one reservation which they have as regards the powers left with the Secretary of State. Those are the powers referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. They relate to Clause 42, setting out the terms and conditions on which the Secretary of State for Scotland may make grants to the Scottish funding council, and Clause 54, dealing with the general directions that the Secretary of State for Scotland may give about the exercise of the council's funding.
It is the same anxiety, as the noble and learned Lord said, which was aired at such length during the passage through this House of the English and Welsh Bill. It is known as the issue of academic freedom. This Bill was drafted differently to the English Bill and it has been amended differently. It has been amended by the Scottish Office in the light of its experience of running the central institutions which it funded directly. The Bill bears that mark.
The Bill was amended in another place at Report stage and it was amended in a different way from the English Bill. At that time Members of Parliament and, I understand, the Government were all under the impression that Clauses 42 and 54 would be satisfactory to all the university principals in Scotland. However, it now seems that the principals, having looked carefully at the two clauses, take the view that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have more power to intervene in their affairs than will the Secretaries of State for England and Wales. They feel that that is wrong and that the wording of the England and Wales Bill should be repeated in the Scottish Bill.
I hope that the Government will feel that that desire can be met. I shall be interested to hear anything that my noble friend may have to say on the point when he replies to this debate. If the Government do not feel inclined to table their own amendments on this matter, I give notice that I shall certainly do so. That having been said, I simply reiterate that the passage of this Bill in its improved form is of importance to the education and training of people in Scotland. We can improve the Bill but I hope that no one, for any
1466
reason, will attempt to frustrate it. I hope that at the end of this debate the House will give the Bill an enthusiastic Second Reading.
12.36 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I have no wish to provoke a West London question by intervening on a Scottish Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for her assurance that any misgivings on that point would be unnecessary. We sometimes find in this House, when we consider a Scottish Bill immediately after an English Bill on a similar subject, that the atmosphere becomes a little like Boxing Day. Looking around this Chamber, it does not look particularly like an historic occasion. Yet such is the nature and paradox of the occasion that it is perfectly possible that that might actually be one of the reasons why this might be an historic occasion. For it is perfectly possible that this may be the last piece of domestic Scottish legislation to be considered by the Union Parliament at Westminster. It is at least possible that in a Parliament at Edinburgh there will be more interested parties present on a Friday morning and involved in the legislation than there are here now. I agree—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Earl proceeds, perhaps I may say that he has made a political point. It was agreed a week ago yesterday across the Floor of the House to consider the Bill, but then objection was made and the Bill was sidelined to a Friday. The number of Scottish noble Lords on my own side and on the noble Earl's side of the House who would have been present to speak on that earlier occasion, but who are not here now, would have been greater. The discussion has been greatly impoverished by that fact. The present arrangement has not been very satisfactory for the discussion of legislation for Scotland. That is why it does not appear to be like Boxing Day, as the noble Earl described it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the original arrangement was quite unsuitable and that it aroused great protest on all sides of the House?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that remark. I was aware of the question, but I was not in the Chamber when it was discussed and that is why I have not alluded to it. It seems that there was some difficulty in securing a satisfactory arrangement either way and that rather illustrates my point that there is often such a difficulty about the timetabling of Scottish Bills.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about Clauses 42 and 54. In other words, there is agreement from all quarters of the House.
I have noticed that every time we debate a Scottish Bill there are exchanges to and fro across the Chamber about how far Scottish and English law should, or should not be uniform. It might be helpful to the House to consider that as a general question rather

1467
than invoking it as a piece of special pleading on every occasion. The circumstances in which I think it is proper for Scottish law to be different are when the Scottish legal system is involved; when there are particular circumstances such as the fact that the Church in Scotland is not the same Church; the principle of what one might regard as affirmative action—for example, the clause in the Act of Union of 1707 which guarantees the survival in perpetuity of the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Aberdeen—or that there is, on occasion, a very healthy competition between the legal systems of the two countries. It must always be in order to recommend something on the grounds that it is actually better.
Conversely, the argument for uniformity applies for principles of general fairness incorporated in the equal taxation provisions of the Act of Union, where one is arguing that the other system is better, or for the sake of tidiness and consistency. I would argue that the second and third of those principles of uniformity apply here. I cannot see that any of the normal grounds for justifying differences apply.
I shall not elaborate on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said about Clauses 42 and 54. The specific passages in those clauses that concern people are the use of "notwithstanding" in Clause 42 and the use of the word "outwith" in Clause 54. "Outwith" is a good Scots word. In principle, I am perfectly happy to see it in a Scottish Bill. I am not so sure about seeing it in this place. I know it has been argued that the general intention of the clause is benign. That may well be. But as my honourable friend Mr. Stephen argued in another place, that intention is not embodied in the Bill. It is not clear that the use of that clause would necessarily be denied.
On Part I of the Bill I listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, had to say. I agree, as I believe everyone on these Benches does, with the general principles that my noble friend Lord Addington was stating about local authorities. We shall listen to the debate as it goes ahead and see what emerges. I also noticed in Part I a curious point in the drafting of Clause 7 concerning the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. That is drafted in the enabling manner; that the Minister "may" establish a funding council. I was a little intrigued by that because if he "may", conversely, it must mean that he "may not". If he does not, I do not quite understand what is envisaged or what will happen.
We had a good deal of debate on Part I of the English Bill about the case for further delay. I shall not reiterate that. But there is one point in the Scottish situation which seems to be distinctly different. The changes introduced by the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act came into effect just four months ago, so introducing these new changes right on top of them might make change begin to appear a little like a waterfall. I wonder whether there is a stronger case in the Scottish Bill than there was in the English for a commencement date of 1994.
On Part II of the Bill we on these Benches agree formally with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. We are firmly in favour of the end of the
1468
binary line. We welcome it. We have been arguing for it for a long time. We argued for it and we voted for it in 1988. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, we have some misgivings about the way in which it is being done. We agree entirely with what the noble Lord said about the need for additional resources.
Our misgivings may go a little deeper. I note the comments of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Association on the danger to research funding under this Bill. It said:
"Twelve institutions cannot compete for resources previously shared only by eight without there being an adverse effect on quality."
That misgiving is one that we share quite deeply. We noticed what the Minister said about the purpose of the Bill being to achieve wider access. We on these Benches share that purpose. The expansion of higher education is a purpose shared between all three parties. But there is some ground for concern about how that is being done. The most cursory reading of the Bill will illustrate that it is being done by means of promotion of what the Government call efficiency.
The Minister may have noticed an article in this morning's Independent by Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, formerly chief executive of the Universities Funding Council and before that chairman of the University Grants Committee. He should know a good deal of what he is talking about. One point that article serves to illustrate is why the Government have always been so resistant to allowing the funding councils to give advice in public. We are beginning to get some indication of what we may have been missing by that insistence. Sir Peter is very deeply concerned by the effect of expansion without additional resources. He states:
"The Government describes its application of market economics to university funding as promoting 'efficiency', because it has no means of measuring quality and whether it has fallen".
Earlier in the article he stated:
"No doubt we can bring our unit costs down to the French level if we bring our higher education standards down to theirs as well".
That is worth considerable thought as an example of the kind of issues that are causing concern as a result of the reduction of the unit of resource.
I have given the Minister notice that I intended to raise the issue of the freezing of the chair of Scottish history in the University of Edinburgh. There is no more sensible place to have that chair than right on top of the archives. I have worked, in the same day, in the Scottish Record Office, the National Library and Edinburgh University Library. That the main chair of Scottish history should be in that place makes a very great deal of sense.
I received a letter recently from a distinguished American historian of Scotland who is a corresponding member of the Council of the Scottish History Society. What he says is worth thought:
"If Edinburgh's university leaves the Chair dedicated to the study of the nation's history empty, it will be saying to the people of Scotland, and to the world of historical scholarship, that Scotland's history is so unimportant that its study can be sacrificed for the sake of saving a few pounds".
I shall not elaborate on the view which I hold profoundly that by that way we shall not be able to

1469
understand English history either. But I will say that this is perhaps an inexpedient moment to give that signal to the people of Scotland.
I think I can script pretty well what the Minister's reply will be. The Minister will say that the Government respect the autonomy of the universities and that decisions about allocation of their resources must be made by the universities within their own priorities according to the resources available. That is a little bit like Hobbes's argument, that the man who jumped out of the top floor window of a burning building was quite free not to do so. There is no dispute about the truth of the argument. The argument is about its significance. Choices are made within the range of possible options, and precisely the argument Sir Peter is asking the Government to address is whether the range of possible options is being narrowed to an unacceptable extent.
There are a few points of drafting to which I should like to draw the Government's attention. Clause 45(2) (c) allows the Secretary of State to revoke the provisions of endowments. The Government heard the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on revoking trust deeds. The point needs consideration. I was also interested in the provisions of Clause 47 which allow the Government to close any designated institution. The Minister may perhaps have shown how that is compatible with the provision of the Act of Union guaranteeing the survival of the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Aberdeen. I would welcome a little further clarification on that point.
Some further clarification that I would welcome on that point concerns the definition of "university" now used in interpreting that provision of the Act of Union. When the Act of Union was passed, when the foundation statutes of those universities were drawn up, a university meant a research university. Nowadays not all universities are to be research universities. Will the Act of Union guarantee the survival of those four universities as research universities, or will it not?
I shall mention only one other point. I noticed in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum the remark that the Bill has "no EC implications". I am glad that the question has been considered. I wonder whether the answer is correct. There is a good deal of debate with the EC about recognition of educational qualifications. I wonder whether the pursuit of efficiency may cause rather more problems in recognition of our qualifications than the Government are yet aware.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to clarify one point. He referred to Edinburgh University's decision to cease having a chair of history. The university is not closing the whole department. It has decided that the chair is not for the time being necessary. Am I right?
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is my understanding. That is what I said.
12.53 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who said that he had heard the arguments before, that some of them were hackneyed and that the battle lines were drawn. I am delighted to say that I come to this debate rather fresher than that. Perhaps that is one reason why I have enjoyed it so much. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their great courtesy. I thank in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who referred to my grandfather and my father. I always suspect that it must be rather difficult for people who end up in the House of Lords to start dealing with the grandchildren of their former colleagues.
We have certainly had a fruitful debate and I should like to respond to some of the comments that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the competition for research resources. All institutions will be free to compete for resources available from SHEFC. It is our firm policy to allocate resources on the basis of quality assessments, thus rewarding the best. We have made it clear that the new universities and other colleges should not change their primarily teaching emphasis. Thus there is no reason to fear the dilution of research effort, which was suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was concerned that the transfer of property would leave debt charges with authorities. I can reassure him by saying that authorities are reimbursed through the AEF settlement for capital debt charges on a virtually pound for pound basis. That will continue. It is, as I think we will all agree, the most sensible and straightforward approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to student representation. We recognise that students have an important role to play and that is why a representative of the student associations will have a place on the boards. Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. He indicated that it should be the head of the student associations. That will not necessarily be the case. It will usually be the case but may not necessarily be the case. It is up to the students to decide.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an interesting speech. I shall not be drawn with regard to his views of the constitutional question. He will feel instinctively that we disagree on this, although having said that, I suspect that the noble Earl is a firm Unionist. It surprises me that he cannot see that the proposals which his party is thinking of bringing forward, should it win the next general election, would lead to the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Lord to get away with that. He knows perfectly well that devolution can be carried out within the framework of the treaty.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course it can be carried out within the framework of the United Kingdom, but it could not continue because of the inevitable pressures that would be created between a

1471
Scottish Parliament and a United Kingdom Parliament. That is a point of fundamental disagreement between people who believe in the Union and those who believe that devolution can continue within the United Kingdom framework.
Earl Russell: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to pay attention to the preservation of the Union of Spain since the 15th century? If he did so, he might understand our case a little better.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is certainly my impression that, in the 20th century, where Catalonia has sought to devolve from the central Spanish institutions it has been deemed to be an overall failure. Perhaps we can get back to the issue of the day and the Second Reading of this Bill.
The noble Earl made the point that colleges should not become self-governing until 1994. Of course 1993 is not far away, and in our view a concentrated time-scale is desirable and achievable. A longer period would only add to blight. There are already signs that authorities' spending on colleges is decreasing, particularly in terms of capital expenditure. The noble Earl referred to the article in today's Independent by the former chief executive of the UFC. We have made increased resources available to universities reflecting the growth in student numbers. There clearly is scope for efficiency savings within the system. There is no evidence of a decline in quality. Indeed, it is true to say that the number of first and second class honours degrees has steadily increased in recent years. The Government see no need to introduce top-up fees although institutions themselves are free to do so if they wish. It is a common fact that United Kingdom student support is the most generous in Europe and we have nothing to be ashamed of on that score.
It came as no surprise that almost every speaker in the debate discussed the situation of academic freedom. I am naturally aware of the continuing concern about the drafting of Clauses 42 and 54 of the Bill on conditions of granting powers and directions respectively. The issues involved are both complex and important. Therefore, it is appropriate that they should receive a high degree of scrutiny both within this House and elsewhere. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made that point. As the Minister of State said in another place, the Government are open to suggestions for further improvement to those clauses. I am willing to consider very carefully the views expressed in this House and also to listen to the views of Scottish higher education interests before determining the best way forward. We have not ruled out further amendments.
I am aware that the Scottish universities continue to be anxious, although we understand that the centrally-funded colleges are content with the Bill as now drafted. We amended both clauses in another place in response to comments from the Scottish universities and members of the standing committee. Whether we have done enough is of course a matter for discussion in this House. I have no doubt that we shall have such discussions as the Bill progresses.
Perhaps I may turn now to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale,
1472
about Mr. Justice Simon Brown. In that case, the Secretary of State was upheld by Mr. Justice Simon Brown.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, surely the noble Lord knows that, although the final decision was in favour of the Government, the construction that the learned judge put on the action was entirely against the Government. That is why these two Bills were introduced in their present forms.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, considered the point that this would be a matter for Scottish law? Has he ascertained whether that judgment would stand in Scots law? I should not have thought that it would, although I am not a lawyer.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I feel slightly out of depth in this particular argument with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Perhaps I should just say that the purpose in drafting the Bill is to clarify the powers and not to change them.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour made a most helpful observation on the Bill. She pointed out that there could be a problem as regards non-Scottish domiciled students at Scottish universities. Because of their good reputation in broad-based educational traditions, universities in Scotland attract a considerable number of students from outside Scotland. Our universities will remain part of the UK education system and will continue to be free to admit whichever applicants they choose. I aim to ensure that the funds which will be transferred to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will reflect Scotland's existing share of student numbers.
I turn now to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the chair of Scottish History. Of course, the noble Earl is absolutely right. He already knows what I am going to say; indeed, he paraphrased it. I have no doubt that the university itself will take note of the anxieties expressed both in this House and elsewhere. I believe that it is wrong to suggest that Edinburgh University has been singled out for harsh treatment, or that its recent financial problems arise from government policy, rather Edinburgh's deficit arises from internal financial management problems. However, I understand that those problems are now being tackled and that a recovery plan is in place; but it is inevitable that some hard decisions will have to be made in the process. The university must live within its means.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have heard government Ministers invoke financial mismanagement on many occasions. But is the noble Lord familiar with the maxim: the first time is happenstance; the second time is coincidence; and the third time it is enemy action?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are many universities which have not found themselves in the same difficult position as Edinburgh has over the past few years.
In conclusion, I should stress that in the Bill we are creating an efficient and creative system that will meet our pledge to increase still further the number of Scots

1473
of all ages entering further and higher education. We have set ourselves a challenging Bill. However, I am confident that we shall achieve its aims. I look forward to the next stages in the progression of the Bill through the House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
1.5 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Provision for the disabled is no new issue to your Lordships. The House has a proud record of insisting through amendments to proposed legislation that adequate facilities are made available better to integrate disabled people into the mainstream of our economic and social life. The Bill before us today is somewhat different. It is not concerned with a particular area of policy or provision; it is concerned with establishing the basic civil right of disabled people to be treated no less favourably on grounds of their disability than able-bodied people in the areas essential to a full and independent life.
The Bill is not about charity and paternalism; it is about rights. It is now increasingly accepted and recognised that disability is not so much a medical problem or a problem for the individual but rather it concerns the relationship between someone with a disability and his or her environment. By viewing disability as a social issue in that way we are able to focus on the real problem, which is the way that society structures its institutions and the environment.
There is nothing novel in legislation to outlaw discrimination. Many other countries have such legislation relating to disability. In this country we have legislation against sex discrimination and race discrimination. The Bill before us today is constructed on similar lines and would, I suggest, present few problems in implementation because we are now becoming increasingly familiar with applying the concepts of direct, indirect and institutional discrimination—concepts which are embodied in the Bill.
When anti-discrimination legislation was first introduced there was little understanding of those concepts. But we have learnt much in the intervening quarter of a century since the first race relations Act was passed. Those—and at that time there were many —who felt that such legislation was not appropriate for dealing with the problems of disabled people are now having to think again. Indeed, many organisations, including major companies and institutions which are actively pursuing an equal opportunities policy, already include the area of disability in their programmes. I sit on such an equal opportunities committee in the University of Bradford. Perhaps here the Minister—whose right honourable colleague in another place is on record as saying that he is
1474
benevolently neutral to the Bill but prefers the route of persuasion—might be tempted to ask: if attitudes are changing, why choose legislation?
There are a number of reasons for that choice. First, attitudes are not changing quickly enough. There is still an unacceptable level of widespread discrimination against the 6.5 million disabled people in the country. Much of that discrimination is unintentional and unrecognised as such by those responsible. The evidence is familiar to us all. I do not want to dwell for long on that aspect today but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of a few points.
On employment, disabled people are three times more likely to be out of work than non-disabled people. When they leave a job, they face longer periods of unemployment. Only 13 per cent. of disabled people are in professional or managerial positions, compared with 21 per cent. of the general population. Disabled people's earnings are also lower —approximately half the average wage, £100 per week compared with something like £250 per week.
On the environment, disabled people have to face inaccessible homes, transport and services generally. Over 4 million people have mobility-related problems and yet there are only 80,000 accessible homes in the country. As we are aware, most buses, taxis and trains are inaccessible or largely inaccessible to the disabled.
On leisure, not only are many restaurants, pubs, theatres, galleries, cinemas and sports halls inaccessible to disabled people; all can openly deny disabled people the right to enjoy such facilities, as was reported in the press recently when a person in a wheel chair who from time to time made noises because of her disability was asked to leave a concert hall. Many disabled people are not allowed to enter places of leisure without a minder and some are not admitted at all.
On education, despite the Education Act 1981 which provided for children to be educated, if possible, in mainstream schools, the decrease in the number of children being educated in special schools has been less than 1 per cent. in the intervening 11 years. Many local authorities have increased the number of pupils placed in special schools. In all those areas the evidence is overwhelming.
Secondly, even in organisations which have an equal opportunities policy, should that policy be infringed a disabled person has no right of legal redress. Thus, a disabled person when discriminated against is at a disadvantage compared with non-disabled persons who have been discriminated against because they have legal redress. The Bill would enable us to focus more sharply upon the growing understanding of the concepts of discrimination and on the barriers faced by disabled people.
I shall interpose a remark which would have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who wanted to speak in the debate but who was unable to do so because of its timing. He left a note for me just before the debate began saying that through his activities as a patron of SENSE—an organisation which helps deaf-blind people—he came across a case of a deaf-blind man in his thirties who was dumb to the degree that he delivered his speech in a monotone

1475
and relied heavily upon hand communications. He went into his bank to renew his bank card, whereupon he was told, "You won't need that. You can't get out to buy things for yourself". That was odd, because until then he had been doing so for some time. He immediately left the bank and went to a nearby rival bank. That rival bank provided him not just with an account and a bank card but a member of its staff trained in hand language could communicate with deaf-blind people. The noble Lord's colleague was then able to obtain financial advice from the bank, and he was reassured that at least one bank recognised that he had a brain that functioned and a mind that was not disabled. Banks and other institutions can lose credibility and possibly customers if they behave in that way.
The third reason for accepting the Bill is that legislation establishes a benchmark by which standards can be judged. It protects those who on their own initiative seek to eliminate discrimination in their organisations; it protects them against those who might seek to exploit the weak position of disabled people in other organisations; in other words, it provides the level playing field about which we hear so much in other contexts.
Fourthly, legislation would not mean that there was no role for education and persuasion. On the contrary, they would have an enhanced role. Standards established by law are in themselves educational. Moreover, a main function of the proposed disablement commission is to expose discrimination and to provide guidance on good practice.
The Bill is divided into five parts and has one schedule. Part I provides the essential definitions which determine who is covered by the new provisions of the Bill. Part II makes detailed provisions in the field of employment, providing disabled persons who are otherwise qualified with new rights to equal treatment in relation to every state of the recruitment, promotion and dismissal process. Here I emphasise the words, "who are otherwise qualified". It does not, for example, expect, shall we say, that a blind person should be given the job of driving a public service vehicle. If the person is qualified in other ways, equal treatment will be his entitlement.
Part II also creates a new right for the disabled to require an employer to make reasonable accommodation for that disability by adapting or modifying the workplace or conditions under which the person will work. Again, the operative words are "reasonable accommodation". No one, for example, would expect an employer to bankrupt himself merely to accommodate a disabled person. The requirements have to be reasonable and must be justified by the employer as reasonable.
Part III covers the provision of a wide range of goods, facilities and services. It also requires businesses, organisations and bodies which provide those services to make reasonable accommodation for the disabilities of the person wanting to use the services. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, is apposite here.
1476
Part IV establishes the means by which the new personal civil rights are enforced: by proceedings for injunction and damages through the county courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the sheriff courts in Scotland.
Part V of the Bill is concerned with various miscellaneous provisions. The schedule is concerned with the detailed provisions for establishing the disablement commission which would be responsible for helping the disabled to identify discrimination, to investigate cases of discrimination and to provide codes of practice in order to promote equality and good policies.
In 1976 a working party on integrating the disabled, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, said:
"Integration for the disabled means a thousand things. It means the absence of segregation. It means social acceptance. It means being able to be treated like everyone else. It means the right to work, to go to cinemas, to enjoy outdoor sport, to have a family life and a social life and a love life, to contribute materially to the community, to have the usual choices of association, involvement and activity, to go on holiday to the usual places, to be educated up to university level with one's unhandicapped peers, to travel without fuss on public transport."
That is exactly what the Bill today is all about. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Lockwood.)
1.22 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the cogent and sincere way in which she moved the Second Reading of the Bill. It is the brainchild of the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Wythenshawe, Mr. Alf Morris. I have had the pleasure of knowing him for years in another capacity, as the chairman of the Anzac Parliamentary Group. When he was Minister for the Disabled in the last Labour Government, the right honourable gentleman did a great deal for the disabled. I believe that the Bill has no chance of reaching the statute book at this stage and there are undoubtedly shortcomings, as in any Private Member's Bill. However, I think that the Government should give it serious thought.
I am a member of the all-party Parliamentary Disablement Group. Although I must say that I go to meetings rather infrequently because of other commitments, I have attended some meetings. I was present at one attended by my right honourable friend the Minister and I know that he has the disabled of the country very much in mind.
There is no doubt that we are all likely to be disabled at some time in our lives, whatever the stratum of society from which we come. Therefore, this subject needs the consideration of the whole country. In another place, the Bill received support from all sides of the House. Unhappily, it was talked out. Although it is the convention not to criticise the other place in this House, I thought it was an appalling decision, whatever views there may have been on the matter.
I happen to live in an area of Surrey where there are a number of institutions for the disabled, including the

1477
Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Victoria Homes for the disabled. Our local theatre in Leatherhead, the Thorndike Theatre, has excellent facilities for the disabled, but West End theatres are among the worst. It must be said that it is not the fault of any government. In times gone by, architects seemed almost to take the view that there was no such thing as disabled people. The problem is the financial constraints, whether they come from central or local government or from charities. It is difficult to finance facilities for making old buildings, such as some of our theatres, practical for disabled people. It is a crying shame that, merely because a person is disabled, perhaps having served his or her country, he or she cannot enjoy the pleasant things of life such as the theatre or a concert. This should not happen simply because a building is not adapted for disabled people.
A few years ago I went on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Australia. We looked at the Opera House in Sydney, a relatively new building, architecturally perhaps controversial although the outside is quite imaginative. One of the first questions I asked the young public relations manager taking us round inside was: "Judy, what facilities are there for the disabled?" There was a long silence because my understanding is that there was just one lift in this new theatre. That is in a country like Australia which, with New Zealand, has done a great deal for the disabled.
The Bill is wide ranging. An important clause is Clause 6, which enumerates the organisations that, as I understand it, should make mandatory provision for the disabled. I believe that much of the clause is extremely sound, particularly as regards hotels. In some hotels, bedroom facilities are not found below the fourth floor. This is particularly true in Scandinavia. It happens that my wife suffers from arthritis. She also has a heart flutter and finds it difficult to go above two floors, particularly as she was trapped in a lift during the last war: hell's angels will not get her into a lift now. There are people who are far more disabled than that and I hope that the Government will take the matter on board.
On the other side of the coin there are organisations such as the Royal British Legion, and, as county president of the Surrey branch, I must declare an interest. At Maidstone the organisation provides employment in its workshops, and I believe that Remploy has quite a large factory in Wales and employs a number of disabled people. There are also the Star and Garter Homes at Richmond, of which my late uncle was president for some years.
The real problem with this and any other Bill is enforcement. The Government take the view that the voluntary sector can and should do much. I do not believe that people would quarrel with that, but we are in an age where people are living longer, an age of violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. People can become disabled. We must face this fact. The Bill has no chance of being passed in this Session, and may need amendment, some provisions may lead to enormous legal problems. Nevertheless I hope that this Government or any government that may come in
1478
after the election will not say, "This is just another Bill". At the moment the Government are—to use that marvellous expression—benevolently neutral. I do not quarrel with that view at this stage because there are problems of enforcement. However, the aim of the Bill is extremely worth while and all governments should recognise that.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, there could have been no one more suitable to introduce this Bill today than the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I can well recall that when I was chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board I went to see the noble Baroness when she was appointed to take charge of the newly—created Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss with her discrimination against women in the pensions world. That issue is still unresolved and I can only hope that, whatever the fate of this Bill, the proposition it puts forward will achieve a rather speedier solution.
As a background to the Bill it is worth recalling, as the noble Baroness pointed out, that it is calculated that there are something over 6 million people in this country with some degree of physical or mental disability. The merit of this Bill, modelled as it is on existing legislation dealing with discrimination on grounds of sex or race, and taking account of experience gained under existing legislation, is that it would for the first time give disabled people a remedy if they are discriminated against in employment, housing, transport, leisure facilities and other areas.
When a comparable Bill was discussed in another place, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made it clear—anyone who knows him would expect this—that he was perfectly well aware that there was too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people and that this could have a cruel impact on their quality of life as well as being wasteful of ability and talent. However, the Minister remained benevolently neutral on the Bill, perhaps a shade more neutral than benevolent. He argued in effect that legislation was premature and that more time should be given to education and persuasion. He also suggested that the organisations concerned with the disabled were not united in thinking that legislation was called for. I am bound to say that is not altogether my impression.
Some 13 organisations concerned with the disabled got together and launched a manifesto last summer which pleaded for legislation. My postbag suggests that there is a wide measure of agreement among, at any rate, the great majority of organisations concerned, in favour of legislation on the lines of the present Bill. There is indeed a strong feeling that the time has come for something positive to be done and that it has become evident that it is not sufficient to rest on education and persuasion. Something has been achieved certainly but it is not nearly enough.
I wish to use as an example some research done for the Spastics Society which bears on the provisions about employment in Part II of the Bill. In 1986 the society carried out a study which showed beyond dispute that disabled people faced discrimination at

1479
the point of initial application for a job. When this study was repeated in 1990 the results were almost identical to those of the first study. There was no evidence that in the years between the attitude of employers had changed.
The Minister referred in the other place to initiatives by the Employers Forum on Disability, but one can perhaps be forgiven for having a shade of doubt as to how far and how quickly those initiatives will affect attitudes. I appreciate that there is a quota system for all but the small firms for the employment of the disabled. However, even the Department of Employment, skilled as it is in seeing a golden lining to every fresh announcement of increased unemployment, would be hard put to demonstrate that the quota system is actually working. That there is scope for greater employment, for example, of the mentally handicapped, has been shown by the experience of Mencap's Pathway Employment Scheme which has placed in full-time open employment over 2,000 people who previously had no work opportunities.
It seems to me that employers looking at the Bill can take comfort from the careful provisions made in it to which the noble Baroness referred. Those provisions are designed to ensure that employers would not be obliged to make unreasonable changes to accommodation in order to make it possible for disabled people to be taken into employment. Incidentally, I share some of the doubts which have been expressed about whether the county court is the right forum for any application relating to employment, whatever may be applicable to the rest of the Bill. However, that is a point of comparative detail.
As well as problems with employment, there are problems of discrimination in all the other areas covered by the Bill. It is a matter of great regret to my noble friend Lord Rix that a previous commitment in the United States has kept him away from the debate today. If he were here, I expect he would have reminded us that he discovered that the BBC will not allow parties of mentally handicapped people into studio audiences because, so it is said, of fire regulations.
I wish to refer to transport as regards disabled people. Quite a lot has been achieved in this area, but the Minister in another place readily agreed that there was still a long way to go. There are still thousands of handicapped people who cannot use the buses or the long-distance coaches, but who would be able to do so if some changes of design and equipment were made. Highway authorities could well provide more dropped kerbs and more tactile and audible signs at crossing places.
Even British Rail, which I believe has been trying in this area, still has too many stations which are pretty well inaccessible to the physically disabled. Travelling in the guard's van with the baggage is still by no means an unusual experience for the wheelchair user. Examples of discrimination abound in the leisure facilities and other activities covered by the Bill. As the noble Baroness has explained, not only are various restaurants, pubs, cinemas and other places inaccessible for the physically disabled, but there is also
1480
nothing to stop the managements of such places from openly denying disabled people the opportunity to use and enjoy such facilities, and they do.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mention the Sydney Opera House. I can bear out to the last comma everything he said about the total unsuitability of access there as regards disabled people. I would add that access is also unsuitable for able-bodied people. Coming closer to home, I cannot help remembering that when the new offices in Richmond Terrace were reconstructed at enormous expense to house, of all departments, the Department of Health, we discovered when we went there with my noble friend Lady Masham, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will recall, that no facilities of any kind had been provided as regards access for wheelchair users.
No one imagines that the problems of discrimination can be solved by legislation. No Act of Parliament will deter the thoughtless motorist who parks his car halfway on the pavement so that it is impossible to get by with a wheelchair. But legislation, backed by a disablement commission, can help to force employers and others to think about what they should be doing. It can bring to light hitherto unsuspected examples of indirect discrimination, as experience elsewhere has shown. It can give reassurance to the good employer, highway authority or restaurant owner that others will not get away with lower standards. The need for education, encouragement and increasing awareness would not be reduced, but it would be powerfully reinforced.
This Government have made it fashionable to promote charters on behalf of the citizen. This Bill would go a long way towards becoming a charter for the disabled. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has made a very powerful case in support of the Bill presented by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. I want to congratulate her not only on seizing this opportunity of parliamentary time but also on giving a very clear explanation of what the Bill provides. That means that we do not have to do so in our supporting speeches. She is an admirable advocate, with her experience of fighting against discrimination on the grounds of sex, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. There is a similarity between the two cases and the Bill recognises that similarity.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that it was deplorable that Alf Morris's Bill was talked out on 31st January 1992 in another place despite the fact that it was an all-party Bill. Alf Morris was an exceptional advocate for the Bill, with his 25 years' commitment to helping society to meet the needs of disabled people. I well remember—and if he were present he would also recall—that in 1969, when I was Minister of State for Health and Social Security, he was lucky in the ballot and came to me with his draft Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons' Bill, which turned out to be a landmark in the welfare of disabled

1481
people. He wanted to include everything in that Bill. If everything had been included it would have broken the bank. I had to tell him that there were certain conditions under which our Government could give him support. We did a deal: for every costly measure which I asked him to delete I gave him a new and important measure in the field of non-discrimination. The right honourable gentleman is a very amenable man but very tough, and on that basis we were able to come to a deal. If he reads the report of this debate, I can assure him that we shall facilitate his next attempt.
What is the situation now? In another place the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People claimed, as has been said, that he took a position of benevolent neutrality. I thought that that was a misnomer. He was very benevolent but it was benevolent opposition. He made it perfectly clear that he did not think it appropriate or that the time had come for a Bill dealing with these provisions. I cannot accept that the time has not come. If ever the time was right it is now.
The question is, is legislation needed? My noble friend Lady Lockwood has given many examples of discrimination. I was very interested in the recently published findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I need not repeat any of the points which my noble friend made regarding that study.
In 1979, Alf Morris as Minister for the Disabled and I as Secretary of State for Social Services (proud to be in a sense his godfather) set up the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People with an old friend of many of us here, Peter Large, as its chairman. The committee reported in 1982 that there was a need for legislation. That plea was rejected by the then Secretary of State for Social Services. It was rather like the position regarding the Black Report: I set up a committee which reported its recommendations to a successor Secretary of State which were rejected. That is one of the sad aspects of our democratic system in which we move from government to government. However, perhaps we can reverse the situation.
In support of the Bill Mr. Large has written:
"We have thus already waited 10 years for this legislation, losing 10 years hoping that education and persuasion and the voluntary application of goodwill would eventually transform disabled people's lives. We now know they will not. We were right to believe that campaigns to educate and persuade are too costly and ineffective in the absence of a legislative foundation of acceptable behaviour."
He did not argue the case against education and promotion; he said that without the backing of legislation education and promotion are greatly undermined.
I was delighted to see that Sir John Wilson, chairman of the Impact Foundation, of which I am proud to be a council member, sent Alf Morris the message:
"Good luck for your Private Members' Bill on Anti-Discrimination next Friday. We will all be rooting for you!".
I am certain that he will have sent the same message to my noble friend who brings forward the Bill.
There is a great deal of support for the Bill among organisations for the disabled, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said. A recent survey by the British
1482
Council of Organisations of Disabled People, which consists of representatives of the many organisations representing disabled people, found that 6 per cent. of British employers were unwilling to employ any disabled people under any circumstances at a time when employable disabled people are six times more likely than non-disabled people to be turned down for a job. Even though there is legislation which is supposed to deal with quotas it applies only to certain categories of firms. There is a great deal of discrimination.
I should like to pay tribute to the enormous amount of work which the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, has done for disabled people. It would have been splendid if he had been able to speak in the debate but he is not in his place today. The noble Earl made an important speech in your Lordships' House in which he referred to the shameful treatment of a young policewoman injured, ironically, while displaying conspicuous bravery in the course of her duties who was turned away from a charity event because, and only because, she was in a wheelchair.
What about the conduct of taxi drivers who refuse to carry blind people if they have guide dogs with them, as now happens from time to time? What about the practice of employers who never research any job applicant who discloses a disability? The research by the Spastics Society referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, showed that non-disabled candidates were 1.5 times more likely to be offered a job than disabled candidates.
Does legislation help? I believe that it does. Of course legislation is not the only answer. It is only part of the answer. One can look at the experience in education, public awareness, good practice guidelines and the concept of equal opportunities employers and equal opportunities housing agencies. That is all extremely good but it is not enough. It must be backed by legislative power.
One could say that in relation to many other areas. For example, we have debated many times whether the poll tax is good or bad, but if there had been no requirement for people to pay the poll tax it would not be a question of a few million people not paying; nobody in the world would have paid. There had to be legislative backing. Racial discrimination is another example. As a Back-Bencher new to Parliament in 1965 I was involved in promoting the first race relations law which was carried. I was a Minister in the Home Office in 1967 when we passed the second Act on race relations. It has made an impact. It does not mean that there is no discrimination but it has meant that it is known to be illegal and the law has had an effect, in the same way as legislation against sex discrimination has had an effect.
I could give another example of seat-belts, in which I had a particular interest. As a Back-Bencher it was my amendment to a transport Bill which finally made seat-belts compulsory. That was after years and millions of pounds had been spent trying to persuade the public that they ought to wear seat-belts. People said that it was a restriction of their freedom. Of course it was. If my noble friend's Bill is carried that will be a restriction on freedom—on the human

1483
freedom to be prejudiced to discriminate against disabled people. Certainly people knew that that is what society felt should be done. Hundreds of lives have been saved as a result of seat-belt legislation. Another example is drink-driving. When my noble friend Lady Castle, was Minister of Transport, she introduced the breath test. She and I, and no doubt most of us, would now go further and make breath tests mandatory.
There is a great deal of evidence that legislation does not solve problems. Legislation backed up by education, promotion and publicity is needed. I do not want to go into the details of the proposed legislation: my noble friend did that very ably. The Bill could be improved in Committee and, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, it seems likely that it will not be carried through before the general election. Earlier in the day the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he did not know the date of the election. It is about time that the Prime Minister told us the date so that we can all go ahead with planning our lives. The only man who knows it is the Prime Minister. Why should he not share that knowledge with the rest of the nation? We all have an interest in it.
The Bill will pave the way for what happens after the election. I have no doubt that at some stage the Prime Minister will get around to fixing the date of the election. After the election we shall see what the situation is. I am certain that eventually the Bill will become law.
I was very touched with the quotation made by Alf Morris in another place when he moved the Second Reading of his Bill. He cited a Spastics Society advertisement which showed a picture of two babies and he quoted the caption: "One of them has cerebral palsy, the other will grow up with full human rights". He said that that was the purpose of the Bill. That is the purpose of my noble friend's Bill.
1.52 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on her clear and comprehensive explanation of the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale that, with her wide experience she was the ideal person to introduce it. She speaks not just from the relatively narrow perspective of disability. She sets the Bill in the context of society and discrimination as a whole. As the noble Baroness said, it is a society which is now more at home with the concept of equal opportunities. She wound up with powerful words from the Snowdon Report, and I am delighted that the noble Earl is with us today.
There has been a shift in attitude on the part of the Government toward legislating on this issue. On 31st January at the abortive Second Reading of Alf Morris's Bill in another place, the Minister for disabled people, said that he wished to encourage education and raise awareness. He added—and this is where I find the shift in attitude:
"In the longer term, I do not rule out a return to the legislative approach if the approach that I am commending to the House does not work".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/92; col. 1256.]
1484
I shall not give instances of discrimination or argue the need, because others have already done so. I shall just give one or two reasons why I think legislation would be helpful and why we should not be afraid of it. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke of CORAD (the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People) which was set up by Alf Morris under the chairmanship of Peter Large. Its main recommendation was for legislation to make discrimination on the grounds of disability illegal. The scope and nature of the proposed legislation was basically as is now set out in the Bill before us. CORAD realised that neither legislation nor education alone would solve the problem of discrimination; both are needed.
I should like to highlight three points from CORAD's report in favour of legislation. First, education campaigns on their own are expensive and rarely very successful. In 1979 two national campaigns to make people wear seat belts cost £1.8 million. Both campaigns failed, in the absence of legislation. Secondly, while legislation will not make people love each other, it can make them behave properly toward each other and that in turn can influence attitudes for good. Thirdly, legislation would ensure that any cost or effort involved in treating the disabled properly is spread more evenly. Without legislation, those lacking in goodwill would gain an advantage over those who put themselves out to help disabled people. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to the effect that legislation provides a benchmark for good behaviour.
We must recognise that people with disabilities are not naturally more litigious than anyone else. The purpose of the Bill is not to take everyone to court. Indeed, it could be agreed that, if a complaint gets that far, it is a lost case so far as concerns human relations and a just society. Experience from abroad—for example, South Australia, New South Wales and the United States—shows the law as a background against which settlements and adjustments can be agreed and education and persuasion can flourish. In fact, New South Wales has had legislation for some time, but I am fairly sure that the Sydney Opera House was built before the legislation was introduced.
I believe that the Bill before us would provide a firm foundation for cost-effective campaigns of education and persuasion, about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, spoke most persuasively. The masterly explanation of the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, stressed the importance of safeguarding the definition of the qualified person and also the test of reasonableness. The Minister raised objections at Second Reading in the other place on the matter of the county courts and wondered whether the test should be of reasonableness or justifiable discrimination. I am sure that we could discuss those points at a Committee stage; it would be extremely useful.
Your Lordships have recently been bombarded with amendments and debates about people with disabilities, children with special educational needs and students with learning difficulties. On the Further and Higher Education Bill the Government were extremely helpful in accepting and bringing forward amendments which they recognised as sensible or

1485
necessary. I hope that, if this Bill is enacted, many of those smaller amendments of a prodding or reminding nature would no longer be necessary and noble Lords would feel less besieged by disability issues.
CORAD reported its findings in February 1982, which is exactly 10 years ago. How well have education and persuasion succeeded over those 10 years? The noble Baroness ended by quoting from the Snowdon Report and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, ended by quoting from the Spastics Society. I should like to return to the Second Reading on 31st January 1992 in the other place and quote more words from the Minister for disabled people. He said:
"We all know that there is still too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people. We know that that is wrong and often has a cruel impact on the quality of life of disabled people. It is also remarkably stupid, because the wealth of ability and talent that disabled people have to offer —a variety of enterprise in society—is significant, and it is a waste of those talents if they suffer unjustifiable discrimination".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/92; col. 1251.]
We should give this Bill a Second Reading.
1.58 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on these Benches we warmly welcome the Bill although we fully realise the difficulties that it faces in becoming a reality on the statute book. In particular, we welcome the philosophy behind the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have a detailed package of proposed legislation—should they ever be in a position to introduce it—to deal with disability generally. A number of the subjects dealt with by the noble Baroness's Bill are part of the package that we would put forward, to which we would add adequate income for disabled people and the proper implementation of the 1986 disability Act.
So far as the disabled are concerned, the subject of discrimination is quite a difficult one. There is no doubt that discrimination exists. My own father was for 40 years quite visibly disabled as a result of polio. He said that throughout his life he had never come across any active discrimination as such, although he did encounter lack of imagination from time to time.
For someone who is visibly handicapped—someone who, like my father, loses the use of his legs and walks with sticks —there is often considerable help from individuals from the most surprising quarters. I remember that in the 1950s he caught one of his sticks in a moving escalator on the London Underground. Much to his dismay, he was approached by a group of fairly forbidding young people who at that time were described as Teddy Boys. He was most astonished when they lifted him bodily from his position of embarrassment and took him to another place, with great concern for his future welfare. He was most impressed by that incident and others during his life.
I believe that other noble Lords have mentioned deafness. Where disability is not so visible or marked, it is necessary for employers in particular to ensure that their younger employees are made aware of such disabilities. Perhaps through lack of time, lack of imagination or lack of education they may not be aware that someone who is deaf or blind has particular difficulties.
1486
The noble Baroness conveyed to us the story of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It is interesting because it tells us much about banks and their employees. I should like to know the name of the bank which reacted so positively after the bank that was so deficient. It would not want my overdraft; but if I were in a position to do so I should like to transfer my business to that bank. It was an example of a young man, probably under the pressure of a new job, whose immediate reaction when faced with someone who was both blind and deaf was, "You won't have need for the use of a bank card". That shows lack of imagination on his part but also lack of training and foresight on the part of the employer. It was a valuable example of the kind of corporate action that is needed.
The noble Baroness discussed the various aspects of the Bill most thoroughly and clearly. I do not wish to repeat them. From my observation and experience, there are certain skills in employment which disabled people have which are superior to those of people who are not disabled. I do not consider just piano tuners —an obvious example—but physiotherapists. Physiotherapists have an enormous ability to use their hands. They are often blind. I heard of a case some time ago—I hope that it does not prevail today; other noble Lords will know the answer better than I do —when it was difficult for physiotherapists to go into hospitals to apply their skills, which were much needed, because hospitals would not allow guide dogs into the premises. I hope that that situation does not prevail today. If it does, it is an aspect that needs attending to under the noble Baroness's Bill.
The questions of leisure and access to recreation and the arts are most important. Recently I was asked to go to a presentation by an organisation for the blind relating to transport. I found myself seated between two elderly ladies who had been blind from birth. I have an interest in the cinema and the theatre. To my surprise both said that they liked going to the cinema and theatre equally. That may surprise some people. With the cinema being a visual medium one might consider it of no interest to blind people; but that is not so. Noble Lords have referred to the fact that many cinema managers do not show the care and imagination needed. Perhaps it is because cinemas were not built in the first place with the access required for people in wheelchairs. But the excuse about the fire risk which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to is trotted out as a reason for not allowing disabled people to enter a cinema, whether they are blind, have lost the use of legs or have other disabilities.
Although I do not go to race courses these days for many different reasons, I notice that the facilities for disabled people have very much improved. The management has to be congratulated on that. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, nods; I know that he has an interest in that sport. Such improvement is encouraging. I hope that it is not the bookmakers who have arranged those improved facilities. Nevertheless it is heartening to consider that many disabled people now have the possibility of a day out and are able to see an excellent sport at close quarters.
One also has to consider art galleries and theatres. Indeed, new book shops need more thought in

1487
planning. I noticed that the refurbishment of a well-known bookshop in the West End has been undertaken with obvious thought for the disabled. That again is heartening.
It appears that much is being done for the disabled, but that does not mean that we do not require the noble Baroness's Bill. I am sorry that it is unlikely to reach the statute book. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that if the fashion for charters continues—although I hope that it does not—as a charter for the disabled the Bill would be absolutely ideal.
2.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for moving so well the Second Reading of this important Bill. As is the convention, I make it clear that although I speak from the Dispatch Box I speak from a personal view. However, my party supports the principle of anti-discrimination on disability legislation.
In debating the need for the Bill, we should consider what we mean by discrimination and how it comes about. In looking through the dictionaries in your Lordships' Library I was interested to read the examples that they gave of discrimination. There is not a single mention of discrimination on the ground of disability—it is always on the ground of race, sex or colour—although, as we know, there are more than 6 million disabled people.
What causes able-bodied people and society in general to discriminate against people with disabilities? There are many reasons. Some are psychological, the deep-seated fear of that which appears not to be normal or is unknown. That fear goes back through history. The Old Testament Book of Leviticus reiterates the physical and mental perfection that is necessary for all aspects of religious ritual. During the Middle Ages disability was associated with evil and witchcraft. Physical or mental impairment was deemed to be the punishment of a parent's wrongdoing. Visits to Bedlam were a common form of amusement. Even today one can see on television some performers who try to exploit disabilities in order to raise laughs.
In terms of culture there is the attitude of society as a whole. There is economic discrimination in employment. As regards income, we know that disabled people are poorer than the able-bodied because that has been shown by the OPCS and the surveys carried out by the Disablement Income Group. Education rests on the concept of a special need outside the mainstream of education. Indeed, often expectations are so low that one feels that special education is aimed at producing a generation of telephonists, audio typists and lift attendants. Disabled people are more likely to be out of work and for longer periods, and if they have employment it is usually work of low pay and of low status. However, this is neither the place nor the time for a detailed discussion of the whole area of benefits for disability.
We believe, as do many people, that the only social and just means for providing benefits for disabled people is a combination of a disability cost allowance
1488
and a disability income allowance. That will be a long battle but I am sure that eventually the justice of the argument will prevail. It is a long-term target of the next Labour Government to shift the balance of benefits towards the ultimate objective of a comprehensive disability cost and income allowance. It will take longer than the lifetime of one Parliament to achieve that.
The whole attitude of society towards people with disabilities is that they are unable to take charge of their own lives. That is seen as being a job for able-bodied professionals. There have been references to discrimination in leisure and in social activities. There has been widespread discrimination in terms of access and attitude. In my experience, some restaurants will not allow in guide dogs, saying that it will affect the other customers. Theatres, cinemas and, it seems, the BBC will not allow in wheelchairs because of the risk of fire. A seaside resort banned a group of mentally handicapped people because it was felt that they would upset other visitors.
There is an interesting example of the muddled and patronising attitude professionals can so easily adopt.The Disability Handbook, an excellent publication, deals with the care needs and mobility requirements likely to arise from various disabilities and chronic illnesses. It is produced by The Benefits Agency Medical Services and is written by six doctors. In Chapter 2, which deals with the presentation of disability, the paragraph headed "Underrepresentation of disability" states:
"Many carers, particularly those looking after people with severe learning disability, work extremely hard to make the disabled person appear as independent as possible. For example, they may work for months or even years to teach the person how to go to the local shop on their own. This independence is an illusion—any deviation from the 'norm' will expose the true extent of the continuing care and supervision being exercised in the background. These people only appear to function because of the highly structured environment which has been created for them."
Under the heading "Overrepresentation of disability" the handbook states:
"This occurs less frequently than underrepresentation. However, there are still situations where disability may appear to be in excess of that expected … In the long run, this can be detrimental to the disabled person by preventing them from achieving whatever independence they might manage."
That is an example of the muddled and patronising attitude which can occur even among professionals.
There is a legion of examples of attitude. For instance, a television presenter praised a disabled lad for his bravery because, as he said, "He is not even in a wheelchair". The presenter thereby automatically devalued every other child with the same condition who is in a wheelchair. A headline in the Sun newspaper used the word "spastic" as a term of insult. A recent disgraceful advertisement in the Guardian showed Britannia in a wheelchair in order to illustrate an economy in decline. There is the use of able-bodied actors and actresses to portray people with disabilities while so many disabled actors and actresses can easily play the parts. Such examples are legion. They show conclusively that education and persuasion are not enough. Therefore, a Bill such as that which we are considering is long overdue.

1489
Unemployment, low income, dependence on benefits, a hostile physical environment and ingrained social attitudes conspire together to discriminate against people with disabilities. There must be positive discrimination in favour of people with disabilities to redress the balance. That needs the backing of legislation to enshrine the essential move from consideration of individual needs to active promotion of individual social rights. A combination of charity and the social services is not enough.
The Bill has been extremely well explained by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. It is a good start on what is likely to be a long road. There is no need for me to go through the Bill in detail.
The first Motion that I ever moved in your Lordships' House was to draw attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In that debate I coined the phrase "the disabled divide" to describe the great gulf in expectation and achievement between people with disabilities and the able-bodied. If enacted this Bill will go a long way towards bridging that divide or, in the words of President Bush when he signed the American Disabilities Act in 1990:
"Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down."
2.14 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness on introducing the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which has allowed us to have what all your Lordships would agree has been an extremely useful debate on a wide range of fundamental issues which affect people with disabilities. I thank the noble Baroness for emphasising the very proud record which we have in this House in this sphere.
Establishing the means to overcome the barriers which people with disabilities still face in their everyday lives is an extremely important subject which crosses party political boundaries. I begin by quoting from a speech made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in another place on 31st January. I apologise to the House for repeating the quotation because the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has already quoted the same passage which I wish to quote. However, it is useful to convey how we feel on these matters. My right honourable friend said:
"There is much common ground between the parties in the House. We all know that there is still too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people. We know that that is wrong and often has a cruel impact on the quality of life of disabled people. It is also remarkably stupid, because the wealth of ability and talent that disabled people have to offer —a variety of enterprise in society—is significant, and it is a waste of those talents if they suffer unjustifiable discrimination."
At the risk of being criticised for borrowing too much of the speech of my right honourable friend perhaps I may quote another short passage because I do not believe that I could express the point better myself. My right honourable friend went on to say:
"There is no difference of opinion in the House about the ends that we seek: the integration of disabled people, their independence and their participation in a range of activities …
1490
recreation and sport. Above all, we want them to have control over their own lives".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/92; cols. 1251 and 1256].
I associate myself wholeheartedly with those sentiments.
We do not deny that discrimination still exists. At the same time I believe that the situation has improved over the past few years. I am convinced that it will continue to improve because we are all committed to seeing that it does. This Government will continue to work to achieve the objectives so succinctly described by my right honourable friend.
Mention has been made of the Bill introduced in another place by Mr. Alf Morris; several noble Lords referred to its fate. I do not believe that the procedures of another place are a matter for this House but I should point out that in another place the Bill had nearly two hours of debate. Even had it received a Second Reading when it was introduced, with the general election approaching it could not have completed its passage through Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows that I do not know when the election will be, as I said earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the election were to be in June or July, surely there would be enough time for the Bill to complete its passage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was going on to say that I believe all noble Lords would agree that the Bill would have needed substantial amendment in both Houses. It would have received quite long Committee and Report stages and Third Reading. It is unlikely that time would have been found to get a Bill through, whatever the timing of the election. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows when the election will be but, as I said earlier, I have not the first idea of the date.
As I have said already, we have considerable sympathy with the thinking behind the Bill. We shall give it serious thought, as my noble kinsman Lord Auckland asked us to do. However, we have always made it absolutely clear that we wish to see the elimination of discrimination. We have a good record of working towards that end both by influencing the way people think and by legislating in particular areas where that is necessary. I must say to the House, however, that despite everything that has been said today, and however much I wish to see the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities, I remain unconvinced that this Bill is the right measure to achieve that at this time.
Many acts of apparent discrimination against disabled people on the grounds of their disability arise through ignorance and thoughtlessness rather than ill will. Too often, prejudice and pre-conceived ideas about what a disabled person can or cannot do act as a barrier to employment or integration in other spheres of life. We must continue to improve awareness of ability and to remove the negative aspects of disability. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, quoted the example provided by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, of the young man who was both deaf and blind being refused a bank card by one bank and having to go to another. The first bank lost a

1491
customer through its ignorance; the second bank certainly gained a customer through acting with sympathy and understanding. It may also have the luck of gaining the overdraft of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, should it wish to have it and should we discover its name. However, would legislation have made the first bank any more enlightened? I suspect not. Banks and other institutions will change their attitudes as they learn that it is in their interests as well as the interests of the disabled so to do.
We have improved opportunities in many areas for people with disabilities in this country in recent years and we shall continue to work to bring about the changes in attitudes and improved awareness among the general public which are an essential step in achieving full integration. We shall continue to introduce concrete measures, including specific, targeted legislation where necessary.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for her comments concerning amendments which were accepted to the Further and Higher Education Bill. I cite also the package we produced in the Local Government Finance Bill for those who are disabled and the reliefs to be provided in that field.
In this country we have a good record on such measures. I am sure that the House will forgive me for not describing all of them in detail. Many points were put forward which require a certain amount of detailed response. But I am sure that noble Lords will accept that there is no need for me, for example, to respond on the question of the Sydney Opera House, for which I have no responsibility. However, perhaps I may briefly refer to the complaints made about the building in which the headquarters of both my department and the Department of Health are held —Richmond House. If there were problems for wheelchair access in the past, they have to some extent been eased, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, will confirm—she has been to my room to see me on occasions. I hope that we shall continue to move forward in the same way in other areas.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the point was that when the building was designed in the first place, with all the expertise that went into it, and when the building was to house the two departments most concerned with disability, nobody thought to make it accessible to wheelchairs. The department then had to go to considerable expense to make it accessible.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord has the wrong end of the stick. As I understand it, it was not originally intended to house the Departments of Health and Social Security. But, as he said, that is not the point. Whatever department it was intended to move in, wheelchair access should have been considered.
However, I want to use the Richmond House scenario to illustrate an important point; that is, that the Government do introduce legislation in specific areas where it is needed. The building regulations of 1985 have now been replaced by new regulations laid in December, which come into force in June. Further consideration is being given to extending the
1492
regulations to include alterations of buildings already in use. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that point.
Obviously I will not be able to cover all the points on housing, education and leisure. But my understanding on the specific point of access to theatres, particularly West End theatres, is that it is being addressed. There are major problems with a great many theatres because they are in the main old buildings. But I understand, and some noble Lords will know, of the adapt fund that was set up in 1989, with funding from both the Government and the Carnegie Trust, which assists with the costs of making arts venues accessible. That relates not just to theatres but also art galleries. That is just another example of one small field in which there can be progress without legislation being necessary.
I want to talk about two areas where substantial progress has been made over the past few years which very clearly illustrates the progress that can be made without legislation. I am sure that most noble Lords will accept that the first and probably most important of these is employment. We do of course have one piece of employment legislation for disabled people; namely, the quota scheme which was mentioned by one noble Lord. It has been in place now for over 40 years, although we acknowledge that it does not work as well as originally intended, not least because the majority of people with a disability choose not to register as disabled. They do not wish to be singled out as in some way different. Quite rightly, they wish to be employed, trained and promoted on their merits.
The best employers are already publicly committed to this philosophy. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who referred to the work of the Employers' Forum of Disability, an organisation of over 50 of the country's leading employers which are committed to good practice in the recruitment and employment of disabled people. Only last month, the employers' forum launched its Agenda for Disability setting out 10 points for action. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Disabled People and my noble friend Lord Ullswater attended the launch of this agenda. I know that they were certainly impressed by what the forum is trying to achieve through its agenda and in other ways.
The Department of Employment works closely with the forum and with many other organisations which can contribute to improving the employment prospects of people with disabilities. These voluntary efforts are also helped by the fact that all the department's employment and training schemes are open to unemployed people with disabilities, often with the entry criteria relaxed and with increased priority. In addition, the department operates a range of special schemes aimed at assisting disabled people to get or keep employment. This includes providing advice and practical help to individuals and to employers.
I acknowledge that some employers, sadly, discriminate against people with disabilities. We believe that progress in overcoming such discrimination in employment can be achieved most effectively by improving awareness of the abilities of disabled

1493
people and dispelling ignorance and prejudice. This will continue to be backed with practical help. The Department of Employment works with industry and many local statutory and voluntary organisations, as well as with individual disabled people, to promote and implement this approach.
The second area I should like briefly to touch on is transport. This is a problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, stressed. She referred to the inaccessibility of many forms of public as well as private transport. Here too there is a blend of targeted legislation and co-operation between government, providers and users. There are still shortcomings in the accessibility of the public transport system. That is true of every country in the world. But over the past 10 years, the Department of Transport has worked with manufacturers and transport providers, as well as with organisations of and for disabled people, to introduce considerable improvements.
The key to success is, I believe, to use legislation selectively, and to target it carefully. The transport world provides a very clear example of the benefits of specific rather than general legislation. By focusing on technical standards and specific transport modes it is possible not only to ensure good standards for access but also, most important, common standards of access.
I am sure that the House will have noticed that all new London taxis are equipped to carry wheelchairs. By January 2000 all London taxis are required to be accessible. London is the first capital city in the world to require its taxis to be accessible. I am very pleased that over 60 towns and cities in the United Kingdom have introduced or are planning similar requirements.
To cover other transport needs, the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the Transport Act 1985 and the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 all involve specific duties to take account of the needs of disabled people. In other areas equally good progress has been made without legislative back-up. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, paid some tribute to British Rail. It has set a clear policy internally to provide for disabled passengers and, while progress must still be made in improving access on suburban and regional services, all new rolling stock is now designed to be accessible and all InterCity routes are already fully accessible with the very welcome additional feature on new rolling stock of a wheelchair accessible WC.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I went out of my way to say that I thought British Rail was one of the organisations which has really been trying and has done quite a lot; but, good heavens, there is still a great deal to be done.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those remarks. As I said, the noble Lord did pay some tribute to British Rail and I was trying to acknowledge that tribute.
The combination of education, co-operation and specific legislation is proving effective, and I emphasise that it is only specific legislation that will assist progress. I do not see how general civil rights
1494
legislation, even overseen by the kind of Disablement Commission envisaged by this Bill, could achieve those ends.
Legislation cannot abolish prejudice and ignorance despite the persuasiveness of the arguments produced here today. I continue to have reservations about the effectiveness of general anti-discrimination legislation of this kind.
Several noble Lords acknowledged that the Bill needs amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, specifically said that there were certain aspects that needed amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to the use of county courts and whether that was appropriate. This is obviously neither the time nor place for any such detailed consideration; but, for example right at the beginning of the Bill, I suggest that, fundamentally, the definition of disability is open to a range of interpretations. How would "reasonableness" and "undue hardship" be interpreted? Those are only some examples of specific difficulties which might arise in interpreting the Bill in practice. More generally, we have to ask ourselves whether it would be right to introduce a climate of litigation into the numerous areas of public and private life covered by this Bill, and whether that would benefit disabled people more than the approach I have outlined of combining education, co-operation, and specific legislation where it is needed.
I have listened very carefully to all the arguments which have been put forward during this debate. I note especially the strength of feeling that has been expressed here today. I acknowledge that many of the speakers have considerable knowledge and are extremely well-informed about disability, and some even have personal experience themselves. It is clearly right that we must consider very carefully all that has been said here today about the fundamental issues which are raised by this Bill.
As has been said on various occasions, we are benevolently neutral in our attitude to the Bill. We do not think that it is the right way forward at this time. Nevertheless, I have no intention of opposing Second Reading of this Bill.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the description of "benevolently opposed" is very much more appropriate than "benevolently neutral"? Quite clearly he is against the passing of this Bill. That is not neutral at all. His position is that he is opposed to it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is up to my right honourable friend and myself to decide on the words we use. I consider that our attitude is one of benevolent neutrality. I have explained why there are problems in the approach as set out in the Bill, but I have said that we are very sympathetic to the aims behind the Bill and the ideas underlying it. We do not think that this Bill is necessarily the right way forward at this time.
2.34 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who spoke in support of the Bill. Apart from the Minister

1495
—and I shall come to him later—all other speeches have been fully in favour of the Bill. I have had a number of letters and apologies from other noble Lords who would have liked to have spoken in the debate today, but who unfortunately could not do so. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, would have liked to have made his maiden speech on the Bill, but he is abroad. The noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod, intended to speak, but I had a telephone call from her this morning to say that she is ill. All speakers have been in favour of the Bill and some very telling evidence was put forward in support of it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his tribute to my honourable friend in another place for all the work that he has done in this area. The Bill is of course his Bill but has been transposed to this House. All the preliminary work was done by my honourable friend and by his team which includes the majority of the organisations working on behalf of disabled people. We should pay a sincere tribute to all the work that they do.
A number of noble Lords referred to one or two deficiencies in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was unsure whether or not the county courts were the right medium of redress for employment cases. If we had more time—the Minister indicated that there is unlikely to be sufficient time for the Bill to progress further—it would have been useful to have gone through the Committee stage and looked at the definitions and at the provisions contained in the Bill. With the experience of this House in improving legislation I am sure that we would have been able to make improvements even to this Bill. No one is pretending that the final word has been written or said on the Bill.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He said in his opening remarks that he welcomed the debate because it had given us an opportunity to look at this problem in some detail. He quoted his honourable friend in another place who said that there was much common ground and that the ends that we seek are the same. The noble Lord then seemed to depart from the ends when it came to the means. He confirmed that he was as benevolently neutral as his honourable friend in another place and he said that the Government would give serious thought to the Bill but he was unconvinced that it was the right remedy. He went on to refer to what he saw as the alternative approach. It seemed to me that he was ruling out legislation. I am surprised, because the alternatives could still proceed. The Bill would not interfere with that process but would reinforce the approach that he was suggesting. I am very disappointed with his response.
The noble Lord dealt in some detail with the two areas of employment and transport. He referred to the 50 major companies that are involved in the Employers' Forum of Disability. The work that is being done in this field is very welcome indeed. However, the noble Lord mentioned 50 firms. The Financial Times quotes the top 500 firms, so a good many firms are not involved in this work. As I said in
1496
my introduction, legislation of this kind helps to provide a fair competitive field for those organisations and firms which are trying to eliminate discrimination.
As I indicated, although education and persuasion are excellent, they are slow. We have only to look at the whole of our culture and vocabulary. All of it is full of images which detract from our acceptance of the fact that there is discrimination against disabled people. For example, we talk about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, an "idiot's guide", and "lame ducks". They are all derogatory to the people who have a disability. We use such expressions in our everyday speech. Unless we can really focus on those problems, we shall not be able quickly to eradicate discrimination against disabled people.
The Minister had some doubts about the definition of the word "discrimination" contained in the Bill. Well, all right, we could look at those definitions. However, I think that the definition of indirect discrimination, which has been so valuable in the field of race and sex discrimination in bringing to the fore those unrecognised forms of discrimination and which is contained in the Bill, would be absolutely vital to achieving complete eradication of discrimination in our society.
I hope that the Minister will, as he said, think seriously about the Bill. From what has been said, it sounds as if we may not progress much further before the general election. But I trust that this House will place on record its approval for such a Bill. It could then be picked up after the general election either by the government of the day or by Private Members in this House or in another place. If that were to happen, then our debate today will have made a very useful contribution to that process. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992
2.42 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 31st January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before introducing this draft instrument, as an owner of agricultural land and managed woodland, I think that it is appropriate that I should declare an interest.
The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992 will replace the pilot Farm Woodland Scheme, which was introduced in 1988 for an initial three-year trial period. As I shall explain, the new scheme builds on what we have learnt from our experience with its predecessor. It will provide increased financial incentives to farmers to convert land currently in agricultural use to woodland. Equally important, the new arrangements will be very much easier for farmers to understand and simpler for the Government to administer.
The current Farm Woodland Scheme was a product of the ALURE review carried out in 1987.
For the benefit of noble Lords who may not recall this particular acronym, I should explain that it stands for, alternative land use in the rural economy. That review identified forestry as an important potential alternative use of agricultural land in the light of agricultural surpluses. The Farm Woodland Scheme was, therefore, introduced on 1st October 1988 following the passage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988.
The Farm Woodland Scheme applies to Great Britain and is administered jointly by the agriculture departments and the Forestry Commission. It will remain open to applications until 31st March 1992. It provides establishment grants to farmers for planting woodland on previously productive agricultural land. In addition, annual payments are made to farmers to compensate them for the agricultural income foregone from converting to woodland. Depending on the type of woodland created, these annual payments are made for a period of up to 40 years.
Up to the end of September 1991, applications had been received for some 16,000 hectares to be planted under the farm woodland scheme, of which 12,500 hectares of planting had been approved. Over 19 million new trees have been planted and three-quarters of them are broadleaved species. When one considers that forestry represents a significant new departure for most farmers, those figures can be regarded as encouraging. However, I shall not pretend that that uptake is as much as we hoped for when the scheme was launched in 1988.
A thorough review of this scheme was, therefore, undertaken last year. The main findings were that the objectives, structure and administration of the scheme are too complicated. Furthermore, the financial incentives which are available are insufficient and paid over too long a timescale.
The draft Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992 has been designed to take account of those findings. Careful account has also been taken of the views expressed by interested organisations which were consulted about draft proposals last year. Like its predecessor, the new scheme will apply to Great Britain and will be introduced in Northern Ireland by separate arrangement. The new scheme contains several important changes to make it more attractive to farmers and easier to administer while ensuring that environmental benefits continue to be provided.
The new scheme has more sharply focused objectives. Those are, first, to encourage planting of woodland by farmers who will remain in farming, thereby enhancing the farmed landscape and environment and, secondly, to encourage a productive alternative land use to agriculture.
Administration will be much simplified. There will be a simple two-stage application process. Farmers will apply to the Forestry Commission for establishment grants under its woodland grant scheme. Once they have received approval from the Forestry Commission, they can apply to the appropriate agriculture department for annual payments under the farm woodland premium scheme. That arrangement
1498
recognises that the Forestry Commission is the expert on planting trees while agriculture departments are the experts on farming.
Financial incentives to farmers are substantially improved. They will now be eligible for the full range of establishment grants under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme, including better land supplement where appropriate. Furthermore, the annual payments by agriculture departments have been "front-end loaded" to provide for higher rates of payment to be made over shorter periods, which is what farmers would prefer.
The number of payment categories has been reduced. There will now be just two categories of woodland: those planting more than 50 per cent. by area of broadleaves will receive annual payments for 15 years, while those planting 50 per cent. or less broadleaves will receive payments for 10 years.
Revised maximum limits for areas to be planted will apply. There will be no limit on the number of applications which can be made in respect of each farm. However, planting must not exceed more than half the area of the farm unit. Furthermore, planting of unimproved land in the less favoured areas must not exceed 40 hectares on any unit. Common grazings in the Scottish crofting counties will be eligible under the scheme, but there will be a total limit of 100 hectares for each common grazing area.
A new, more practical definition of "improved grassland" is being introduced. It will be based on the content of productive grass species in the sward. That has the advantage of being easily checked and puts no restriction on the methods used to improve grassland. Equally important, it will ensure that environmentally-sensitive sites are protected.
A three-year rule will apply for land to be eligible. Arable land or improved grassland must have been in that condition for at least three years prior to application. In addition, unimproved land must have been in agricultural use for at least three years beforehand.
What will this new package mean for farmers? I give two examples: first, a farmer in Lincolnshire wishing to plant six hectares of broadleaved woodland on improved grassland would receive some £10,500 in establishment grants from the Forestry Commission and annual payments of £1,500 for 15 years from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; that is, a total of over £33,000. Secondly, a sheep farmer in a disadvantaged area in Wales seeking to plant six hectares of conifer woodland on improved grassland would receive some £7,500 in establishment grants from the Forestry Commission and annual payments of £1,140 for 10 years from the Welsh Office agriculture department: a total of nearly £19,000.
The scheme will not be subject to any planting targets or quotas. However, it will be subject to cash limits. We envisage that sufficient funds should be available to meet all applications but if this turns out not to be the case, we may have to defer approval of some until a later date.
I should explain the position of woodland used for agroforestry or for the production of short-rotation coppice. Woodland to be used for these purposes will

1499
be eligible for establishment grants from the Forestry Commission under its Woodland Grant Scheme. However, such woodland will not be eligible for annual payments under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. Because the income loss from these forms of production is potentially less than from traditionally managed woodland, it makes sense to target Farm Woodland Premium Scheme funds on traditional woodland. However, the Government recognise that these forms of production hold promise for the future and we are funding research and development on them.
To summarise the position, the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme will build on experience gained from the pilot Farm Woodland Scheme. It will be more attractive to farmers, simpler to understand and operate, and environmentally beneficial. The bringing forward of this measure demonstrates the Government's commitment both to assisting farmers to finding alternative uses for agricultural land, and to improving and enhancing the environment. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 31st January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Cavendish of Furness).
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. Obviously from this side of the House we welcome it. We have always supported the idea of woodland grants. We particularly welcome the front-end loading, which is sensible, as well as the encouragement for broadleaved species.
There is only one question I wish to put to the Minister, but before doing so I should say that I was intrigued by the reference to "grazing constables". I did not know such things existed, but presumably this is a Scottish term. Whether the "grazing" refers to the constable or to the land on which he walks it is not quite clear.
The Minister said that the Government are disappointed with the uptake under the scheme. He referred to applications for 16,000 hectares, of which 12,500 hectares have been approved. How does that compare with the targets the Government gave us at the beginning of the scheme in 1988? From memory, it is only one-third of the figure we were hoping to achieve by this time over the four years. Perhaps the Minister will confirm the target figure and indicate the reason for the lack of uptake which we hope will be put right by the change in the scheme. Other than that question, we welcome the scheme from this side of the House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for the welcome he has given the scheme. I believe that it will hold greater opportunities for woodlands. I am also grateful to him for giving me notice of his question on the amount of planting under the various woodland schemes compared with the Government's target figures. As he said, we expressed disappointment with the previous take-up.
The Government have an indicative target of 33,000 hectares per annum for new woodland planting
1500
in Great Britain and that is the overall figure. In 1991 almost 12,000 hectares were planted. In addition, a limit of 12,000 hectares per annum was set for planting by farmers under the Farm Woodland Scheme. Some 16,000 hectares of new planting have been approved since the scheme was introduced in October 1988. I expect that the substantially improved incentives available under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, together with the better package of grants under the Woodland Grant Scheme, will have a positive impact on planting levels. I expect planting under any scheme to improve as and when the economy shows an upturn. I commend the measure to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Practice on Picketing
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, one of the first, and certainly one of the most important, of this Government's step-by-step reforms of industrial relations and trade union law was to make flying pickets unlawful. The 1980 Employment Act removed any trade dispute immunity for a person to picket other than at his or her own place of work, unless he or she is the union official who represents the pickets. To supplement that change in the law we also took powers to issue a statutory code of practice. It is that code—originally issued in 1980—that would be replaced by the revised draft before your Lordships today.
Since 1980 there have been various changes to the law relating to picketing and the organisation of picketing activities. For example, the 1982 Employment Act made it possible to take legal proceedings against a union which organises unlawful picketing. The 1984 Trade Union Act required unions to ballot their members before calling on them to take industrial action; and the 1988 Employment Act gave union members protection against being disciplined by their union for crossing a picket line.
In addition, although scenes of violent and intimidatory picketing had become much less common than in the 1970s, over 10 years had passed since the issue of the code and it was appropriate to review what it said about good practice —that is, above and beyond the requirements of primary law —in respect of the conduct and organisation of picketing. Accordingly, in February 1991 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to prepare a draft revised code. At the end of July the draft revised code was published for public consultation with responses being invited by the end of October. This Motion now seeks approval of that draft, as modified to take account of comments received during the public consultation period and

1501
laid before the House some three weeks ago. The draft revised code is organised into the same main sections as the present code.
The preamble, while otherwise in a standard form, calls attention to a new feature of the revised code designed to be generally helpful to the reader, that is the use of light grey background to identify and distinguish passages which outline or re-state provisions in primary legislation.
The section on picketing and the civil law reflects changes to relevant employment law since 1980—for example, by giving more emphasis to the requirements which must be satisfied if picketing is to be lawfully organised, for example by a trade union. There are new recommendations about limiting picketing activities where a picket takes place at an entrance or exit of a place of work shared by workers of more than one employer and about choosing locations closest to the place of work being picketed.
The sections on picketing and the criminal law and on the role of the police update the present code to take account of the 1986 Public Order Act. Section 14 of that Act is also mentioned in the section on limiting numbers of pickets as it gives the police powers to impose conditions on public assemblies such as may occur where demonstrators wish to show support for pickets. Otherwise that section is very similar to the equivalent section of the present code. It includes the provision—with added emphasis by highlighting the text—that,
"pickets and their organisers should ensure that in general the number of pickets does not exceed six at any entrance to, or exit from, a workplace; frequently a smaller number will be appropriate".
The section on organisation of picketing restates important good practice recommendations and adds some new ones such as that a picket should not claim to be, and identify itself as, official—that is, supported by a trade union—unless the union is in fact prepared to accept the consequent responsibility for the pickets' activities. It also outlines the new statutory protection which union members now have against being disciplined by their union for crossing a picket line.
The recommendations in the final section—
"Essential supplies, services and operations"—
now recognise that picketing should not be so conducted as to disrupt "activities" (as well as "supplies of goods and services", as in the present code):
"necessary to the maintenance of plant and machinery".
In applying the law since 1980, the courts have, where relevant, been guided by the present code's recommendations, in particular in respect of whether more than six pickets at any workplace entrance would be likely to give rise to fear and intimidation.
The statutory code is a valuable source of information about the law, and of advice about good practice which can help ensure that picketing does as little damage as practicable to good industrial relations. The time has come to revise the present code so that it can continue to make the same contribution in the years to come. The revised code will serve that purpose. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear explanation of the draft code on picketing. However, I wonder why it is felt necessary to bring it forward at this particular time. To my knowledge there have been no recent occasions upon which picketing has presented any problem. There have been no scenes outside workplaces, no clashes with the police and nothing remotely resembling the kind of activity of which the Government have complained and to which the Minister referred today. I question, therefore, whether in introducing the code at this time the Government are attempting just before an election to raise the old anti-union issues again. Public opinion polls would appear to indicate that a majority of the population regard unions as a good thing. There seems no justification for the Government's evident belief that they can get more mileage out of an anti-union stance.
That said, the code is in line with existing legislation which has been passed by Parliament. It is, of course, useful to have in a small handbook a summary of the legislation and a guide as to its meaning and to action which unions and their members in dispute may or may not take. I agree with the Minister that that is very clearly set out. The present layout is an improvement.
This House will know that we on these Benches regard the legislation upon which the code is based as one-sided and unacceptable, although I would point out in passing that for many years the TUC's code on picketing limited the number of pickets which ought to be deployed at any one time or at any one place. However, it does not seem to us to be fair that the Government should intervene legislatively so strongly in favour of employers and against those whose only real weapon against exploitation is the collective one of unionisation.
In my view a reasonable Government would at least attempt to put a fair legislative framework in place, acknowledging that individual employees, particularly at times of high unemployment, have virtually no means of redress against unfair treatment by an employer except through union activity. The Minister may point to provisions allowing access to industrial tribunals but, as he knows very well, there have now been decided restrictions on that remedy, both in regard to the length of time an individual must have been in employment before going to an industrial tribunal and in regard to the waiting time before a case reaches an industrial tribunal. The situation is even worse if the individual seeks to go to appeal. Therefore, restrictive legislation with regard to unions on which the code is based simply add to the problems of individuals seeking some semblance of fair treatment.
I shall not comment on the various sections of the code. The Minister well knows our objections to the legislation since we voiced them on many occasions

1503
when the Bills were before this House. However, I repeat that in my view the legislative framework is unfair.
Despite what the Government say, that framework is not largely responsible for what they call improved industrial relations. The reduction in the number of disputes is due largely to the very deep recession and the mounting toll of unemployment. When we are in Government we shall ensure that we have a fair legislative framework—not a framework balanced in favour of the unions or the employers, but a framework which endeavours to be fair to both sides in industrial relations—acknowledging that employees, through their union, have certain rights which are a part of ILO conventions that in the past have been ratified by successive UK governments. However, I offer no objection to the code that is before the House. As has already been stated, it is based on legislation which has been through both Houses.
Lord Knights: My Lords, it had been my intention to speak at rather greater length on this topic than I now propose to do. Clearly the strong views that were held in 1980 when the code was first introduced have long since disappeared. However, of all the multifarious duties imposed by society on its police, the one that causes them the greatest concern is the maintenance of public order. In discharging their responsibilities in that field, it is clearly necessary that at all times the police should be seen to be completely impartial.
The one drawback of this code is that it bears the hallmark of government and to that extent may introduce an element of partiality into a process in which impartiality is of the essence. Ideally, I should like to see a code produced jointly by the TUC, the CBI and/or ACAS, which those bodies would be prepared to police. But, in the absence of that, this code serves a very useful purpose, provided that we bear in mind the fact that occasionally it may be thought to be the code of the police or the Government rather than what one would have hoped; namely, an acceptable compromise between all the parties concerned.
Having said that, the alterations and amendments seem to me to be eminently suitable. In particular I like the distinction which is now drawn between pickets and activities connected with picketing; that is to say, assemblies or meetings, which have always been more difficult to police than picketing itself. With those few comments I am happy to support the proposal.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, welcomes the way in which this draft code on picketing has been put forward. It is in the interests of those undertaking picketing that such a code should be introduced. It is perhaps unfortunate that she should take a code which has had a very useful life for a 10-year period and which, because of the existence of a number of changes in primary legislation, is now being reviewed to be part of anti-union legislation. I altogether reject that concept.
I believe this code to be exactly as I stated in my
1504
opening remarks. It is a fair review of the original code, taking into account the changes in primary legislation since that date. I believe that we now have a fair legislative framework. I should point to the fact that the industrial climate is better now than it has been over the past five years and better than it was in the latter part of the 1970s. The noble Baroness said that that came purely from the pressures of recession in the past year or so. I ask her to examine the figures relating to the number of strikes that have taken place over the past few years. She will see that there have been fewer strikes than even in the last year of the 1970s.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, with his long experience of working with the police, drew attention to their role as outlined in the draft code. He also pointed out that the code bore the fingerprint—if I may use that expression—of government. The document went out to consultation and various amendments were proposed which have been incorporated in the revised draft code on picketing that is now before the House.
The code was brought forward by the Government. However, they have listened to other parties and have sought to make the code the most practical guide for those who are intent on using picketing as a form of persuasion to their colleagues. The code of practice explains the primary law and what the code of good practice should be. I believe that it does so very fairly.
I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1992
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase by 5 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the scheme to those who first become entitled to a payment on or after 1st April 1992. By doing so the Government are meeting their commitment to maintain fully the value of the payments set in 1980 when the scheme started.
Parliament enacted this legislation in 1979 to provide compensation to those suffering from certain dust diseases which developed as a result of their employment and who were unable to obtain compensation through the courts in the normal way. The nature of the diseases covered by this Act means that there can be a period of as much as 20 or 30 years between exposure to the harmful dust and the disease being diagnosed. In that period many of the employers in whose employment the exposure took place may have gone out of business, leaving sufferers with very

1505
distressing illnesses, shortened life spans and no means of obtaining compensation for themselves or their dependants.
The Act is not intended to be used as an alternative to seeking compensation through the courts. It is intended to help those sufferers, and their dependants where the sufferer has died, who are at a disadvantage when seeking to sue a former employer because, by the time he or she realises that they have the disease, the employer no longer exists.
There are three basic conditions for a payment under this compensation scheme. Those are that disablement benefit is payable in respect of the disease; that no court action has been brought nor compensation received in respect of the disease; and that every relevant employer has ceased to carry on business. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is not possible fully to compensate individuals and their families for the suffering and loss but at least the regulations allow us to offer practical and material help when it is most needed.
The Department of Employment makes every possible effort to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way to ensure that those who need the help receive it promptly. It is recognised that each case is an individual tragedy and the department is as generous in interpreting the conditions as the Act and the regulations will allow. Since the Act came into force in 1980, 6,866 applicants have made a claim, 75 per cent. of whom have received payment. The total cost to date has been £30.1 million.
The initial payment regulations set out a scale of payments by age and percentage disability as assessed by the statutory medical hoards. When the scheme was introduced the Government gave an undertaking
1506
to Parliament to review the amounts of compensation payable with the aim of retaining the value of the amounts originally set.
This is now the ninth occasion on which the Government have asked Parliament to increase the rates. Last year we approved an increase of 9 per cent. from April to take account of the movement in the index of retail prices during the preceding 12 months. The proposal this year is for an increase of 5 per cent., again in line with the index of retail prices.
I feel sure that the House will agree with me that the circumstances leading to those payments are to be regretted. I very much welcome the opportunity once again provided by these amending regulations to maintain the value of the compensation payments.
Although the number of claims for dust diseases covered by the Act is now much fewer than when the Act was first introduced, it is a sad fact that claims are still being received by my department. Claims are mainly from those who were exposed to asbestos many years ago before the dangers were fully appreciated. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th February be approved—[12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the regulations. We on this side of the House fully support them as from its inception we fully supported the scheme to which he referred. I am grateful to the Minister for his full explanation of that scheme; it is useful to have it on the record.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past three o'clock.