Lords Sitting of 11 June 1992

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Abergavenny The Marquess of Abergavenny— Took the Oath.

El Alamein Commemoration
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of their refusal to arrange a ceremony in this country to commemorate the Battle of El Alamein, they will provide financial support and transport facilities for the widows of those who were killed in that battle and for former members of the forces who took part to enable them to attend the anniversary ceremony in Egypt.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has a scheme which provides financial assistance to war widows to enable them to pay one visit to the graves of their husbands buried overseas. The scheme is administered on our behalf by the Royal British Legion and the department meets ⅞ths of the cost. Widows whose husbands are buried at El Alamein would be eligible for such assistance. However, there is no provision in the defence budget for helping ex-servicemen or war widows to attend commemoration ceremonies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the Government, no doubt because of the generation gap, do not appear to understand that those who were involved, or whose late husbands were involved, in this great victory would wish to celebrate properly the 50th anniversary of it? If the Government persist in their obstinate refusal to organise a proper service in this country, they really are under a moral obligation to assist financially those who are prepared to journey to Egypt to attend the ceremony there.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the cost of supporting veterans attending the 50th anniversary of every World War II battle would be very great. As the noble Lord is fully aware, there are many calls on the Government's available finance.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, we are talking about the widows of men who have died for this country. How mean can the Ministry of Defence get? Is the Minister aware that what he is saying is an affront to all of us?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there are some half million of our former soldiers, air force men and navy personnel buried in some 139 countries. There is no provision in Ministry of Defence budgets to meet this open-ended liability we are discussing.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, do not the Government realise that El Alamein was an exceptional battle? I hope my noble friend will ask
1356
those who have made this rather odd decision whether there are so many 50th anniversaries of such an order occurring in the near future that our resources of thankfulness are likely to become exhausted.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly convey my noble friend's thoughts to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the fact that El Alamein was probably the greatest Allied victory, and certainly the greatest contribution made to the defeat of Nazi Germany, would it not be possible for the Government to consider—I am sure they would have the full support of all the ex-servicemen's and ex-servicewomen's associations—holding a commemorative service in the Royal Albert Hall? If the request of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, cannot be met, can one such distinctive service be supported by the Government?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on two former occasions I have stated the Government's policy. The Government do not think it correct that they should choose between El Alamein and battles that followed in order to hold commemorative services. If we held a service for one, the Government would have to hold further services for every battle that followed.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, as one who was in the Eighth Army but not at El Alamein because of something that happened to me just beforehand, I hope I may express the horror with which I have listened to the remarks of my noble friend the Minister this afternoon. He has failed to realise that this battle was the turning point in the war. He has failed to understand that we wish to commemorate the battle of El Alamein not only because it was the turning point but because it was the first such event. My noble friend has said the Government will not commemorate El Alamein because of the fear of having to commemorate battles that followed. That is a terrible indictment of government policy. I beseech my noble friend to talk to his colleagues again about this matter and for them to confront the widows and those who fought alongside the great heroes of that battle with the remark that we cannot afford to provide a ceremony for the widows to attend. That is a shameful state of affairs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly convey the strength of feeling expressed by my noble friend and by the whole House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we are talking not just about the strength of feeling of noble Lords opposite but also the strength of feeling of Members on this side of the House? In other words this strength of feeling comes from all quarters of the House. Simply to say that the Ministry of Defence budget cannot accommodate what I believe would be the fairly limited expense suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is quite shameful.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I would point out to the noble Lord that I did mention the whole House when I talked about the strength of feeling on this matter. When I said the whole House I meant the whole House or all the Benches of this House.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, what financial assistance has been given by the Germans, who for some strange reason are leading the ceremony celebrating this great British victory, to widows of German servicemen who were killed in this battle?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall certainly try to find that information out. I do not have a reply to that question but I shall certainly try to find out what support is being given by the Germans and I shall let my noble friend know what I find out.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that one of the sad facts of life today is that the younger generation has no conception of what took place in wartime battles or of what was sacrificed to enable them to enjoy the freedom they experience today? Should we not put that situation right? The thousands of lads and women who are buried in Egypt paid the ultimate price for their service. Would it not be worth acceding to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to make it abundantly clear to the present day generation that the servicemen and women involved in that battle made a supreme sacrifice to enable those who are alive today to live in freedom?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sure that the points raised by the noble Lord will be taken into consideration when I return the matter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, my noble friend will accept that I intervene in this matter with some diffidence, but my concern will be obvious to all noble Lords in view of my name. Is my noble friend aware that facilities in the Western Desert are limited for coping with the arrival of large numbers of people and that is why the idea of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there should be a service of thanksgiving in this country which could be attended by a large number of people is so relevant, important and significant?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we are aware of the limited resources which the resorts around the area of Alamein are able to provide.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, in relation to the earlier question about the Germans, is the Minister aware that the Germans celebrated another occasion recently yet criticised us? If they can do that we can certainly do it because we have something to celebrate.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the last comment made by the noble Baroness is not one that I would wish to express in view of the ethos of reconciliation which is the current policy of this Government.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how far does that reconciliation go? Is the noble Lord aware that though one is in favour of reconciliation one can take it to
1358
ridiculous lengths? Are the Government considering changing the name of Trafalgar Square and Waterloo Station?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am not aware that the Government have any such intention.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in reporting to his right honourable friend will my noble friend convey the view that the opinions expressed in all quarters of your Lordships' House and the widely expressed views of the service bodies will not be resisted by a sensible government?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall return to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence with your Lordships' strong views.

Water Resources: Southern England
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to alleviate the water shortage in the south of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the responsibility for maintaining adequate supplies rests with the water undertakers. The National Rivers Authority has a general statutory duty to conserve and augment water resources and is publicising the need to conserve water. Hosepipe bans and drought orders are in force in areas of shortage. The overall position is reviewed regularly by my department and we shall shortly be issuing a consultation paper on water conservation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I remind him of the report on the water resources development strategy issued by the NRA in March of this year in which the NRA concluded that in 1992 and 1993 it would be further considering the question of a strategy for water and would in due course be issuing another report? Is he not aware, however, that in the meantime people are suffering from water shortage and are wondering what is going to be done rather earlier than that? Have the Government any plans for doing anything rather sooner other than restraining people from using water for purposes which they consider necessary? In addition, when such action is decided upon will the NRA have the necessary powers to see that the action is carried out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord talked about the problem of water shortages. He must realise that that problem has been caused by four winters of dry weather, an event which we are told by statisticians happens only once every hundred years. As I said earlier, the NRA has a general duty to conserve and augment water resources, which is why it has issued a consultation document on those water resources. We are looking carefully at the conservation of water by the consumer. Those two forces working together will, we hope, alleviate the problem in the long term.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not only householders, factories and so on which will be deprived of water supply but that complete streams and rivers have dried up, including the River Darent, which is no longer a river at all, where I had the happiness of catching eels and gudgeon as a boy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I very much regret that my noble friend's joy has been removed by the lack of rain. It is our intention in the longer term to make sure that the water system provides for as much enjoyment as possible from natural water resources. To reply to the first point in my noble friend's Question, currently 17½ per cent. of the population is affected not by total water bans but by hosepipe bans.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that the most profligate wasters of water are some of the water companies themselves, which waste 25 per cent. of water through their failure to renew and maintain their mains? Can the Minister tell me what the Government intend to do, before doing anything else, to ensure that the water companies themselves do not waste that precious commodity?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to mention the problem. The figure of 25 per cent. is difficult to quantify because it includes leakage from customers' own pipes and water used for fire fighting or mains flushing. The water undertakers are aware of the problems and are using highly sophisticated equipment to detect and repair leaks as early as possible.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the longer term. Is he aware that as long ago as when my father was a Member of the House of Commons and I was a schoolboy at Eton people were talking about a water grid whereby water could be shared by transferring it from the areas with higher rainfall in the North and West to those with less rainfall in the South and East? Is that not rather a long time to wait?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, recently the NRA looked at the need for a national water grid and came to the conclusion that it was the most expensive and least effective solution. There are minor examples of inter-regional transfers of water—for example, the Ely-Ouse/Essex and Trent-Witham schemes, which have greatly improved the situation in those areas. There is also the example of the inner London water ring main.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that his first reply was a little exaggerated? He said that four dry years had caused the water shortage. Up to a point that is true, but does he agree that what that has really done is to highlight the way we have neglected our water supply? We would not be without water if we had a proper system. In addition to the points already raised by other noble Lords, will the Minister also look at the licences for abstraction from rivers?
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, my Lords. However, the problems is that we have had those dry years. Under the present system if there is average rainfall the water system can supply what we need. However, I should point out that over the past five years consumption has been increasing.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, in view of the contribution of water meters to reducing the problem of water shortages, will the Government look at the water companies' present use of their monopoly position in insisting on water meters being installed by themselves without allowing competitive tenders by local plumbers of the householder's choice?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a matter which the regulator at OFWAT is looking at extremely carefully.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the water companies are pressing metering as though the problem was largely one of usage when already we are among the lowest users per head of water in Western Europe—among the dirtiest—and living in the dampest country. Is it not instead largely a problem of supply, not just a matter of leaks but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, of the need for water transfer schemes? As a full network of transfer schemes requires a co-ordinated approach, which is impossible in a fragmented privatised industry, will the Government take the lead in introducing strategic planning?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness talked a lot of nonsense in her question. Water consumption figures in Europe range from Belgium at 108 litres per head to Switzerland at 264 litres per head. Our figure is 136 litres per head which is by no means a bad record. With regard to the issue of investment in the water industry, in the course of the past few years, since privatisation, we have been investing record amounts of money in the water industry and improving the quality of not just what comes out of the tap but also what has gone down the lavatory.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there must be something badly wrong with this Government? We have been four years without rain and obviously displeasure from above has been visited upon them. Is he aware that some years ago the Labour Government appointed a Minister to deal with this very problem, following which the heavens opened and it rained for weeks afterwards?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that particular solution lies entirely in the hands of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be in the market for advice. Has he contemplated seeking the assistance of our new colleague, the former Mr. Denis Howell?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we all await with anticipation his arrival in this Chamber. No doubt he will be able to give us extremely good advice on this subject.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, perhaps we ought to move on. This Question has had a good airing.

Jubilee Line: Future
3.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose for the extension of the Jubilee Line.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the position has not changed. Unless and until private sector contributions are assured, we see no prospect of authorising the start of construction. We therefore continue to look to the private sector to make its contribution so that the line can proceed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate what contingency plans the Government have if the contribution from the private sector is not forthcoming? Is he aware that there are many other important transport projects which ought to be undertaken in London and which should not be left on hold? What lessons have the Government learnt from this appalling débâcle?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no débâcle. It is simply a matter of joining the private sector and the public sector. I can understand that the noble Lord wishes the taxpayer to pay for everything. People who support that view now are few and far between.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the cost to London Transport of retaining its highly skilled engineering and planning staff who are all ready for the operation? Will there be a time limit put on how long that skilled group can be retained ready to do the work? Does that put pressure on the private individuals who are required to produce the money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have made a contribution of about £100 million in order to help LUL do the necessary preparatory work. The answer to my noble friend's question depends very much on the speed with which the administrator can deal with the problem. We can then proceed as quickly as possible.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the similar developments which arose in Paris in the La Défense area? There the government made full provision for transport, and that is now an additional and thriving part of Paris? Does he feel it desirable that the present impasse and difficulties in Docklands should be resolved in that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Docklands is thriving considerably more than it was 10 years ago. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to know that in 1981 there were 39,500 residents and there are now 62,000. There were 27,000 people employed and there are now 60,000. And the figure of 5 per cent. home ownership is now 40 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister complained about making the taxpayer pay for everything. Is he aware of a widespread feeling that there is a tendency to make business pay for everything? Is there any good reason why business should pay for this project other than that the Government do not want to do so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is fully au fait with the fact that the Government are putting in £1.5 billion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister now kindly answer one of the questions I put to him which he avoided with a rather feeble answer? If the private sector is not forthcoming with the £400 million contribution required, what do the Government propose to do? Do they intend to embark with some speed on other urgent projects?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I replied in my original Answer to the question that the noble Lord has again put to me. His question about other schemes in London is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, having given an answer to my noble friend which was very wide of the question, will the Minister now answer the question of what contingency plans the Government have for the Jubilee Line if the private sector does not come up with its share of the money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered that question in my first Answer.

Schools: Testing of 7 year-olds
3.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to change the current system of testing for 7 year-old children in schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government do not intend to change the current tests which are working well and are already making an appreciable contribution to higher standards in schools.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with that Answer. Is the Minister aware that in increasing numbers teachers at the sharp end of this problem who teach that age group and the associations to which they belong are now expressing the opinion that the time spent on testing the children would be far better used to continue teaching them and so help them further along the road to a better education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the only teachers' association which has commented along the lines

1363
mentioned by the noble Lord is the National Union of Teachers. It is hardly an impartial observer. It does not approve of testing children at all. The impact of testing on children is having a positive effect on the quality of both learning and teaching. HMI has already reported that many children are surpassing the expectations of their teachers.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many who are entirely in favour of testing children at the age of seven because it will help to raise standards? Is she satisfied that the tests are simple and straightforward enough to make their application readily understood by teachers, parents and, not least, the children themselves?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes two very important points. The tests are indeed a very positive way to measure learning. Testing helps to address children's weaknesses and build on their strengths. We are constantly listening to teachers—I am in and out of schools all the time—and any way that we can find to make the tests simpler without losing their rigour we shall implement.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware of an HMI report on the implementation of the national curriculum, Assessment, Recording and Reporting? It says that,
"most LEAs have an adviser or inspector with responsibility for assessment and their work in establishing a structure of support has largely been successful".
In view of Her Majesty's Government's plans to privatise the school inspectorate, what guidance is being given to LEAs as to their future responsibility in supporting school assessment work?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a little precipitate with the question. The new HMCI has been appointed. Professor Sutherland is in place. I am not sure that the word "privatised" is the one that I would use. They will he independent inspectorates. They will be properly registered by the chief inspector who will be in charge of quality and standards. If LEA inspectors wish to bid for qualified inspector status, they will do so. There will be guidance from both the inspectorate and the department.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, would the Minister care to reconsider her statement that the National Union of Teachers is not in favour of testing? Does she mean that it is not in favour of the Government's system of testing? So far as I am aware most of the teaching profession is against the Government's proposals partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Dean. I do not think—in fact I know—that she is not correct in saying that the National Union of Teachers is against testing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. It is not in favour of the system of testing. The system requires that tests shall be carried out only four times in the life of the school child—at seven, 11, 14 and 16 —by a common format across the country. I believe that that will be a valuable tool for teachers and for our children in schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only teachers who are anxious about existing testing procedures? It is also the Government's own advisers, Her Majesty's inspectors. They have stated categorically that they are worried about the management of standard assessment tests at schools. What do the Government intend to do to improve the management of those tests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. Certainly, we responded quickly on the management of tests from last year to this year. We shall continue to listen. However, the inspectors stated that the administration of about 80 per cent. of the tests in schools was satisfactory or better; and of about 20 per cent. that it was unsatisfactory. As I said to my noble friend Lady Young, we shall continue to listen and reform without losing the rigour of the testing.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many intelligent 7 year-olds who are about to be tested have already arrived at the not entirely illogical conclusion that it is their elders and betters who need testing?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all the 7 year-olds have been tested. There are many able 7 year-olds who will be even more able as a result of the findings of some of those tests.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if the Government intend to continue with the tests, will they give further consideration to the publication of the results in the form of league tables? Is the Minister aware that publication has caused a great deal of concern, not only among the schools at the bottom of the table but also among some of those at the top?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer is no. Parents have a right to know how their children are performing in schools. They have a right to know the context in which that information is given. They need to know how a class or school is performing. In the wider world parents are making choices about schools. They also need to know how those schools are performing. We cannot stand back and wring our hands about the situation being better in Germany, Japan or anywhere else if we do not know and cannot quantify how well children perform in our schools.

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Durham Markets Company Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships may recognise this Bill from last Session. Although it was considered by your Lordships and the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, it was not able to complete its passage through another place before the dissolution of Parliament.
The Bill must proceed under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 because under the Law Commissions Act 1965 neither the Law Commission nor the Scottish Law Commission has powers to recommend reform of any law which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to amend.
The Bill consolidates the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and repeals the surviving provision of the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. Both those Acts extend to Northern Ireland and the subject matter is one with respect to which the Parliament of Northern Ireland would have had power to legislate. The consequence of that is that under the procedure laid down by the 1949 Act the Bill must be referred back to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills notwithstanding the fact that the Bill is in identical terms to those in which the Bill passed the House last Session.
Despite that legal requirement, I hope that the Bill can have as expeditious a passage as possible through your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: We are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation as to why the Bill has to come to us in this form.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information) Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The 1990 Act was the first attempt to deal in legislation with the issues which the continuing developments in reproductive technology make possible. It is an innovative and comprehensive piece of legislation which has brought hope and reassurance to many people. We remain one of the few countries to have tackled this issue by the introduction of statutory controls. Your Lordships played an important role in determining the final form of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and this House justifiably shares responsibility for its achievements.
The Bill now before your Lordships is very narrowly defined and is not about embryo research or abortion. It merely seeks to put right certain unforeseen consequences of some excessive caution in drafting one section of the 1990 Act which in other respects, so far as I understand, is working well. The Government would not be seeking this measure if a satisfactory alternative to legislation were available. For my own part, I can assure noble Lords that I am entirely satisfied that the Bill is necessary.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain the background to the Bill. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 introduces a criminal sanction for breaches of the confidentiality provisions in Section 33 of the Act. The criminal sanction in relation to Section 33(5) of the 1990 Act applies only to the clinician who initially discloses the confidential information. Breach of this provision is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine or both. This sanction is in addition to the existing common law which protects confidential information. A person who made an unauthorised disclosure of information which they receive from a clinician would, as now with the 1990 Act, be subject to the constraints of the existing law on confidentiality. The Bill does not alter that position.
Information obtained during treatment for infertility can be extremely personal and private and when the 1990 Act was drafted it was considered right that a stronger duty of confidentiality than existed under the common law should be imposed in relation to it. However, since the 1990 Act came into force practical experience has shown that the provisions on the disclosure of information were in some respects too tightly drawn and they have led to unintended risks and difficulties.
As it stands, the 1990 Act prohibits licensed clinicians, with some specified exceptions, from disclosing identifying information about a patient's treatment to anyone except the patient herself, to members and employees of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority or to other people covered by a licence for the purpose of licensed activities. The practical effect has been found to be that the doctor, himself or herself, cannot pass information to, say, the

1367
patient's GP, even with the patient's consent. The intention was that the patient should have maximum control over the information about her treatment. However, it has become clear that in certain circumstances the restrictions imposed by the Act went too far in this respect. As a result, if clinicians were to do all they might wish to do to protect the health of their patients, they would, under the Act, have to break the criminal law. They should not be put in this position.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I illustrate the effect of the Act as it stands by reference to two examples. First, transmission of information can take place only if the patient personally arranges delivery. The uncertainties associated with this arrangement could endanger a woman's life in certain emergencies. For instance, in rare cases the ovaries of a woman who has received super-ovulatory drugs may be hyperstimulated, sometimes resulting in a dangerous condition which may go unrecognised, with serious consequences, because her GP or another clinician, as an "unlicensed" practitioner, has not been given details about her infertility treatment. In these circumstances, the woman's health could be endangered because the wrong treatment is given as a result of ignorance about another treatment to which the woman had been subjected.
Another example of the unintentionally over-restrictive nature of the Act is that it prevents the disclosure of information for legal purposes. This means that a licensed person may not be able to defend him or herself if sued by a patient. A doctor or other employee of a centre who is sued by a patient who has undergone licensed treatment is unable to give his or her legal adviser information about the treatment given for an identifiable individual. In the early stages of such action it is possible for anonymous information about treatment to be given but once a writ is issued the name of the patient becomes known to the doctor's solicitor and it has become apparent that no further information can then be given as the supply of any new information would constitute an offence. The doctor would therefore be left in an untenable position in comparison with the patient by whom he or she is sued, who is subject to no restraints under the Act.
This House and another place both decided that the person to whom the confidential information relates should retain as much control over the dissemination of that information as possible; I am sure this is right. But it was clearly not the intention that the consequences that I have described should result. The practice of the new statutory structure has thrown up those particular problems.
I now turn to the detail of the Bill. The Bill seeks to make certain specified relaxations on the restrictions on the disclosure of information by licensed clinicians imposed by Section 33(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Section 33(6) of the Act contains exceptions to the general restriction on disclosure and adds further exceptions, removing the criminal sanction from disclosure in specified circumstances and for particular purposes.
1368
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 inserts three new paragraphs, (f), (g) and (h), into Section 33(6) of the Act. Paragraph (f) relates to the necessary, and I stress the word "necessary", disclosure of information before or in connection with proceedings, including legal proceedings and procedures for dealing with complaints. This will deal with the situation that I outlined earlier of the clinician being unable to pass identifying information to his or her solicitor. It will also permit necessary access to necessary identifying information in connection with complaints procedures, something which is also prevented at present; for example, disciplinary procedures of the General Medical Council or the like.
Paragraph (g), the second added exception, applies to the situation where a surrogate mother is involved. It enables a licensed clinician to confirm, for the purposes only of an application for a parental order under Section 30 of the Act, that the gametes of a particular person were used in treatment services which involved the child being carried by a woman other than the wife of the couple seeking the parental order. It does not relate to any other aspect of surrogacy. Without this provision the couple seeking the parental order—that is the couple who commissioned the surrogate mother—might have to prove their genetic relationship to the child through DNA testing, which is time consuming and a quite unnecessary imposition. This provision will permit the simplification of these proceedings; something which is to be welcomed bearing in mind that one at least of the couple seeking the parental order will he genetically related to the child.
Paragraph (h), the third added exception, deals with inconsistencies between the 1990 Act and the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The Access to Health Records Act gives rights of access to records in a number of cases and in particular by specified persons to the records of patients who have become incapable or who have died. The inconsistency arises because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act does not allow access in these circumstances, where infertility treatment has been given. Without access it would be difficult for the personal representatives, or a person appointed by a court to manage the affairs of a patient, to pursue claims where the death or incapacity was alleged to result from infertility treatment.
Subsection (3) of the Bill inserts seven subsections, (6A) to (6G), after Section 33(6) of the Act. Taking these subsections in order, (6A) prevents the disclosure of the identity of a third party whose gametes were used for the purposes of treatment services when divulging information in connection with proceedings provided for by new paragraph (f). Subsections (6B), (6C) and (6D) allow for information to be given with the consent of the individual or individuals receiving treatment. The consent aspect is an essential feature of this Bill. These subsections will enable a licensed clinician, with the patient's consent, to pass information about treatment to the GP or to others who are associated with the treatment, or to anyone specifically authorised by the patient. These subsections will also allow, again subject to consent,

1369
access to certain information for the purposes of clinical and financial audit. Exceptionally, subsection (6E) permits disclosure of information about an individual's treatment without the patient's consent in the event of a medical emergency involving that person where it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the patient's consent.
Subsection (6G) contains a regulation-making power which is subject to affirmative procedure to provide for further exceptions to Section 33(5) of the Act. With the best will in the world, I am not able to give this House a guarantee that all problems with this section of the Act have been identified for all time. In particular, new situations may arise. Having regard to our experiences in the drafting of the 1990 Act it was, therefore, considered prudent to include in the Bill a regulation-making power which enables provision to be made for future exceptions, should they be necessary in the light of further working, without the need for another Bill. I am well aware that such powers are not always welcomed by the House, but I can assure noble Lords that the regulation-making power in this Bill is very narrow. It is subject to the affirmative procedure. Should it therefore in the future be necessary to invoke this power, this House will have the opportunity to debate any regulations made and to approve or reject them.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the Short Title and for the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland and to the Channel Islands. The Bill has no implications on public funds.
I should like to emphasise that the circumstances in which disclosure would be permitted are closely defined in the Bill and, except in specified circumstances, the patient's consent will be required before any identifying information can be disclosed. I should also like to acknowledge the assistance which the Government have received from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which is a valuable and authoritative source of advice on these matters. I wish to thank the authority in particular for the advice that it has given to me in connection with the preparation of the Bill. This Bill benefits both the recipients of infertility treatment and the clinicians, whose devoted commitment to helping those who need treatment to achieve parenthood is fully acknowledged and whose position should be properly protected.
I commend this Bill to the House for your Lordship's consideration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining so clearly this non-contentious but rather technical Bill. I can say at the outset that from these Benches we support the Bill and similar support is forthcoming from the relevant organisations; namely, the BMA, the GMC, Progress—the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction—and individual licensed clinicians.
1370
The noble and learned Lord explained the provisions of the Bill in detail so there is no need for me to go through them. Also, most unusually, the noble and learned Lord helpfully circulated the Notes on Clauses before the Second Reading of the Bill. That is most helpful. In the past when I have asked for Notes on Clauses before the Second Readings of other Bills I have been told that that is not possible because the Bill may not receive a Second Reading. The fact that the Notes on Clauses have been circulated on this Bill means that the noble and learned Lord has considerable confidence in the outcome of today's debate. We must all hope that that is not misplaced. The circulation of Notes on Clauses before Second Reading is extremely sensible and helpful. I hope that this Bill is setting a precedent in that regard.
The points which I wish to mention now we may wish to explore in Committee. They are matters of detail and thus are better dealt with at length in Committee, but they are important and it may be helpful if I mention them in outline now.
We can all agree with the objectives of the Bill but in drafting to fulfil those objectives some ambiguities and a certain lack of clarity may have occurred. The first of those is in Clause 1(2) (f) which provides for disclosure without the consent of the patient where proceedings are involved. The definition of "proceedings" has caused some anxiety. Clause 1(4) states:
"references to proceedings include any formal procedure for dealing with a complaint".
However, there are many other forms of proceedings; for example, divorce proceedings may well be involved in the matters which we are discussing.
It is hard to draft a Bill to cover all eventualities and then find that there are omissions, but in Committee we may have to try to tighten the wording so that it is quite clear to which proceedings the Bill is referring. For example, the BMA has assumed that only the proceedings of the GMC and UKCC—disciplinary procedures—are intended to be covered but I imagine that the Bill is meant to cover a much wider area. When the noble and learned Lord replies to the debate, perhaps he will deal with that point.
Clause 1(3) (6C) uses the phrase:
"a person who needs to know".
That is always a rather difficult concept to define and could lead to an extremely wide interpretation. I give a simple example. Subsection (6C) (c) refers to the auditing of accounts. I can understand that it may be hard to specify a named accountant as regards auditing, but that could mean that the humblest member of an audit team would have access to extremely sensitive information. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will deal with that point. I am concerned about the width of the interpretation as regards the people who need to know.
Perhaps I may give another example. Family health service authorities send inspectors to general practitioners to examine patients' records to check on payment procedures, levels of prescribing and so on. Those inspectors are usually doctors, but one presumes that that would come under the heading "Audit of clinical practice". Again, I am concerned about the width of interpretation as regards who needs

1371
to know. Obviously there needs to be some clarification of this part of the Bill, and we can deal with that in Committee.
The reference to "a specific person" in subsection (6C) has been queried by the GMC since in any disciplinary proceedings a number of people are involved. I understand that the use of Clause 1(2) (f) is meant to cover that situation, but, going back to that clause, it is clear that a great deal will rest on the word "necessarily" in line 14 on page 1 of the Bill. That was a point made by the noble and learned Lord when he opened the debate. It is not entirely clear who will decide what is and is not "necessary". When the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will explain that.
My final point is in regard to the obligation to confidentiality which must be observed by anyone to whom disclosure has been made for treatment purposes. For example, the organisation Progress, which I mentioned earlier, says that it is important to be absolutely certain that disclosure, particularly if it relates to the birth of an identifiable individual who may have been born in consequence of fertility treatment, will "go no further". I presume that the Bill is intended to deal only with what may be termed as the first level of disclosure. Beyond that the normal common law relating to breach of confidence would be the next line of defence. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will confirm whether that is correct. I understand that it would be extremely hard for the draftsman to cover disclosure beyond that specified in the Bill.
As the noble and learned Lord said, if additional exceptions are found to be necessary, they can be dealt with by regulation under the affirmative resolution procedure, with the exception of the matters specified in subsection (6G), paragraphs (a) to (b). That would seem to be a satisfactory way to deal with matters which come to light as time goes on.
Perhaps I may revert back to Clause 1(2) (f), which is concerned with proceedings. It occurred to me that perhaps subsection (6G) could be used to deal with the problem of defining "proceedings". If the Bill were drafted to specify the proceedings which are intended to be covered by the Bill, could subsection (6G) be used to add other proceedings which are omitted now through oversight but which as time goes on it becomes apparent should have been included? I can understand that the draftsmen of the Bill have relied on the word "necessarily" in Clause 1(2) (f), and I understand also the problems of drafting to cover all eventualities and then finding that there have been omissions, but I wonder whether we could use subsection (6G), by regulation, later to rectify omissions.
To conclude, as I have said, the Bill is not contentious. It relaxes certain provisions which were obviously too tightly drawn when the 1990 Act was drafted. During a short Committee stage it should be possible to deal with the points of detail which I have raised: to correct the confidentiality procedures of the 1990 Act to make the system both consistent and
1372
workable in the interests of both patient and doctor. We welcome the Bill and will certainly assist its speedy passage on to the statute book.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches, we support the Bill. I did not take part at all in the discussions on the 1990 Act, but I have looked at this Bill which is concerned with protecting individual rights and in particular the right of privacy in a very vital area.
First, let me say that I have never known a Bill so carefully explained beforehand, both in the explanatory background note of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which I found to be extremely helpful, and in the detailed Notes on Clauses issued by the Department of Health. That is no less than six foolscap pages of explanatory notes for a two-clause Bill. That is quite extraordinary but extremely helpful and illustrates the care taken.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been involved personally both with the parent Act and with this Bill. Both the noble and learned Lord and the department are to be congratulated on and thanked for the obvious care and concern which has been and is being exercised in that most sensitive area where such private and personal problems can be involved.
The need for the Bill in order to relax some of the strict provisions of the 1990 Act on the disclosure of information obtained by an authorised person in the course of infertility treatment has been brought about apparently by the experience of those who practice in this field and a growing appreciation of the practical effects of too rigid a restriction on the passing of information between doctors in emergency situations and in certain legal contexts.
When I first looked at the Bill I wondered why we had not spotted the possibilities beforehand, but as I reflected on the situation I realised that it is virtually impossible to foresee the problems which could arise and which might yet arise in the future. It seems to me that the Bill has been carefully conceived and drafted to meet a restricted number of anticipated situations. But in the light of further experience, whether or not the Bill is amended, it would not surprise me that future review and amendment may prove necessary, possibly to tighten up as well as to relax the permission for disclosure.
I do not share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, save in one specific instance. It seems to me that Clause 1(3) (6C) of the Bill may prove to be the most vulnerable part. The three circumstances set out allowing for disclosure to other than specific persons are situations for which provision must be made. However, it is disclosure to non-specific persons that is the worrying part. The protection that would be afforded to the individual affected by non-disclosure would be the normal common law provision and nothing else. It is when information can be disseminated beyond specific persons that the danger of inadvertent or deliberate future disclosure arises.

1373
The situations expressed in subsections (6B) and (6C) are those which exercise my mind. For the life of me I cannot see a practical and sensible way of tightening the scope of disclosure in that regard. I considered whether one could table an amendment which would improve the position, but at the moment I can see no way of doing that. My present view therefore is that it is probably better for the Bill to go through as it is, with careful monitoring thereafter to see whether problems arise. Should they do so, the indications are clearly that the Executive will take urgent remedial action.
I should like to raise another point. The provision for regulation-making powers permits the making of further exceptions to Section 33(5) of the original Act. However, it does not seem to me to permit a tightening of the exceptions which we are considering in the Bill. It may be that experience will show that, whereas the previous provision was too tight, even with the greatest care we may have relaxed it a little too much. Only experience and time can show us whether that is so.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us his reflections on how the remedial action is to be obtained should experience prove that we have relaxed the provisions a little too much in the Bill. Otherwise, it is an excellent Bill and the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward the remedial Bill so speedily.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I too express my warm support for the provisions of the Bill, which experience has demonstrated to be an essential measure. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the clear exposition and explanation of the Bill. I should like to echo the points that he made regarding the important developments which have already resulted from the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
There is already clear evidence that research carried out in licensed centres under the provisions of the Act and under the careful supervision of the statutory licensing authority have had enormous benefits for human health. For example, there is evidence that through the research made possible by the Act certain women carrying genes responsible for severe inherited disease have been able to bear normal children shown not to be carrying that gene. That has already been a major development.
In making my comments this afternoon I have been greatly helped by the advice I have received from PROGRESS—the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction—and from my former colleagues on the General Medical Council and in the British Medical Association. As the noble and learned Lord made clear, the confidentiality provisions of the existing Act make it an offence for any person to whom a licence applies to disclose to anyone not specified in the Act information about identifiable individuals obtained in connection with the provision of fertility treatment services, such an offence being
1374
punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and unlimited fines. It would also result in the loss of the licence.
In an attempt to protect the confidentiality of those receiving treatment to assist conception, the existing Act has unwittingly outlawed direct communication between doctors such as can be essential in a clinical emergency. For example, a rare complication of infertility treatment involving stimulation of the woman's ovaries which is needed to precede in vitro fertilisation can be that of sudden collapse. If that were to happen in the street to a patient undergoing such treatment, the licensed centre would currently be barred from communicating the fact of ovulatory stimulation treatment to the casualty department to which the patient was taken, even if it were in the same hospital. That could have serious consequences for prompt and appropriate medical resuscitation. The patient would need to be in a fit state to give precise details of her treatment and in those circumstances that could not be guaranteed.
The Bill provides that disclosure can be made with the informed consent of the individual. In addition, disclosure can be made without consent where it is necessary in order to avert imminent danger for the health of the individual or where it is not reasonably practicable or possible to obtain the consent of that individual. As the noble and learned Lord also pointed out, also giving anxiety was a quite unintended consequence of the Act which effectively deprived licensed medical practitioners of the ability to defend themselves in legal proceedings. A clinician who provided such treatment service, if sued for negligence, would be unable to obtain legal advice or representation or to submit a defence in a court of law without risk of prosecution. Similarly, clinicians would be unable to defend themselves against allegations of, for example, sexual assault arising in the same circumstances.
The Bill provides for disclosure when it is necessary for the purposes of legal proceedings. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, my former colleagues on the General Medical Council have some anxiety regarding the definition of "proceedings" as included in Clause 1(2) (f) of the Bill. For instance, one comment is that reference to "proceedings" includes any formal procedure for dealing with a complaint. The GMC wonders whether that would cover grievances or other minor but nevertheless formal complaints procedures or whether it would be taken to include legal proceedings which are not connected with medical treatment —for example, divorce proceedings.
The General Medical Council would prefer to see a somewhat tighter definition, perhaps referring specifically to legal procedures in relation to a civil action for alleged negligence or the proceedings of a statutory body for dealing with a complaint arising from medical care or treatment. Such a body would be the General Medical Council or the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
The General Medical Council expressed some concern also in regard to the use of the phrase "need

1375
to know" in Clause 1(3) (6B). Is that too broad? Would it become an accepted justification for disclosure of information in inappropriate circumstances? It is difficult to define and is often used without explanation of who determines whether information should be disclosed. I know that the current president of the General Medical Council expressed the view to me in correspondence that he may be troubled if the phrase were enshrined in legislation giving it a legitimacy which he did not believe it deserved.
There was one final anxiety regarding a more minor matter needing verification. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, Clause 1(3), subsections (6B) and (6C) contain provisions that, where consent to disclosure is given by a patient, the disclosure must be made to a specific person. As he said, that would give considerable difficulties if it were to apply to the council's disciplinary procedures where inevitably a number of members of staff who treat the information in strict confidence, the members of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee, and of the Professional Conduct Committee, must have access to details of the patient's care in order to fulfil their statutory obligations. It has been suggested by the Department of Health that this clause would not be relevant for disciplinary proceedings as disclosures could be made under Clause 1(2) (f) even where the patient had given consent to disclosure. Nevertheless, that may be a grey area which needs clarification.
These are relatively minor points in what I believe to be an extremely important and very necessary Bill. While one appreciates that this House in general is not enamoured of retroactive legislation, in this instance I am sure that an exception is justified in order to fulfil the original intentions of the Act. Therefore, I welcome the provisions made in the Bill indicating that further regulations might be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the event that additional exceptions might come to light through the workings of the present Act and of the statutory licensing authority. With these minor comments, I give very warm support to this Bill.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I too should very much like to welcome this Bill. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the explanations he has given. The Bill certainly seems to correct some unintended and, in practice, rather debilitating aspects of the main Act although the cautiously worded nature of the disclosure measures in the original Act are perfectly understandable.
I am a member of an ethics committee for one fertility centre that specialises in this field and which sits under the Act. It is licensed with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Many of the cases which come before us as ethics committee members are extremely complex, difficult, and take a great deal of time to deal with. They are also particularly complex for the doctors who have to deal with them in a technical sense.
It is clearly odd that the effect of the Act as it stands is to forbid, with criminal sanctions for disclosure,
1376
those trying to help with a patient's fertility from even discussing the case with the patient's GP, as my noble and learned friend has said. Those individuals should know more than just a little about the patient concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has given one instance in the case of an emergency as to how that might apply. There are others; for example, there is the relevance of somebody of positive HIV status who currently has sperm stored in a centre and whose HIV status was not known at the time of the storage. No consultations can take place about that.
Another example is of a patient who might have leukaemia and is about to have whole body irradiation followed by future marrow transplants. There is the inability of the doctor dealing with fertility measures to speak to the haematologist who is concerned about other aspects of the case so that the management of that patient can be properly studied.
One other aspect which I do not believe has been touched on concerns the inability at present of all those involved—that is to say, the doctors dealing with the treatment and perhaps the GP as well—to discover the outcome of the treatment so that the interpretation of the results can be properly assessed by everyone. Those seem to be weaknesses.
Among other matters, this Bill puts a great deal of that to rights. That will be a bonus for patients and certainly for the medical staff because, as I have said, such cases are far from easy. I believe it will also be of help to those who sit on ethics committees who take their responsibilities with a considerable degree of seriousness not just as regards research matters and those aspects which were inserted into the Bill in this House about the interests of the child, but more generally when it comes to the overall ethical dimensions of the work which the doctors so carefully undertake.
I shall be most grateful if my noble and learned friend can help me with one aspect; namely, the method by which the patient can actually give consent. I hope he can say whether, as a result of this Act, the doctors concerned can now write directly to referring GPs and hospital specialists; whether they need to obtain consent from individuals and couples regarding consultations as well as investigations and treatment; and whether or not it is sufficient to have the consent verbally or whether it should be given in writing. It occurs to some of those concerned that if the consent should be written then the clinicians will need to be assured that a patient signs a document at the time of the initial consultation which covers all future eventualities. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to answer those points.
As regards the new Clause 1 (6G) which permits regulations for the future and which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, touched on, I very much welcome that. In the year or more that I have been involved on the periphery of these matters, techniques seem to have changed dramatically. I can well see that over time it will perhaps be necessary, in order to make the Act as effective as it was originally intended, for just that kind of measure to be introduced without the full panoply of primary legislation. I very much welcome this Bill.
4.17 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome that they have given to this Bill and also for the kind references to the way in which it has been presented to your Lordships. I shall say something about that because it might be dangerous to regard that as a precedent.
As I sought to explain, this is a highly technical Bill in an area where there is great scope for conflict on matters of general policy which were determined under the 1990 Act. I wished to make it as plain to your Lordships as I possibly could, in as good time as I could, just exactly what the scope of this Bill was so that no one might think that we were trespassing into areas which had been decided on with a good deal of difficulty both by your Lordships and another place. I also felt that the Bill was so technical that without a good deal of such help your Lordships might have some difficulty in appreciating just exactly what was its effect.
In a way I feel a degree of disappointment that I particularly was unable to foresee the difficulty when we were considering the 1990 Bill. But these things happen. In a way it was a desire on the part of the Government and I believe of all of your Lordships as well, that very strict confidentiality should be applied in this area because of the very personal nature of the treatment. At that time those who were involved and consulted and who had more practical experience of these matters did not see how that might impinge.
In answer to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I believe that we have tended to draw too tightly. So I expect any change to be in the form of proved necessity for relaxation rather than in tightening up. We have tried to proceed carefully, which is the reason that the power that we have taken is a power to add relaxations rather than to withdraw relaxations. There is also the problem that if one tries to withdraw a relaxation, the information that has been passed out under it will already be in the public domain. It is difficult to make such things retrospective. Those are the considerations.
Some of the matters of detail that have been raised can no doubt be dealt with in Committee, but as it seems that we have a little time, perhaps I can deal with some of them now. I shall deal, first, with the points that have been raised about consent and the form of consent. Consent does not have to be in writing, but it generally has to be for a specific person. Perhaps your Lordships would be kind enough to take a look at Clause 1. New subsection (6B) states:
"In the case of information relating to the provision of treatment services for any identifiable individual—
(a) where one individual is identifiable, subjection (5) above does not apply to disclosure with the consent of that individual".
There is therefore a general relaxation with consent in respect of subsection (5). Where two people are concerned, the consent of both is needed.
Subsection (6C) is the important provision in this connection. It states that for the purposes of subsection (6B), consent must be to a specific person. Therefore, if it is to be operative, the consent must be in favour of a specified person. That is the general rule.
1378
If one wants the patient's consent to allow information to be given out, the consent must be for disclosure to a specified person.
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (6C)—this is on page 2, line 25—relate to circumstances in which a team is likely to be involved. Therefore, as an exception to the requirement that consent must be to a specific person, we have provided that it can be given to a team. The team is defined in the phrase "needs to know".
It is first a question of consent. In effect, the patient must consent to disclosure and may refuse that consent—perhaps because the consent that is asked for is too unspecific. As I have said, a patient can refuse consent but, if consent is given, it may be on the basis that the only people to whom the information may properly be disclosed are those who need to know it for the purpose in question—the "treatment" purpose of (a), the clinical audit purpose of (b) or for the purpose of the "auditing of accounts" of (c). That is a practical step to make the provisions less burdensome to patients. One would not like to have to ask a lady who is receiving this treatment to list all the people who might take part in providing medical, surgical or obstetric services to her because it might be quite a big team. This seems the best way to deal with that. Some of those who have commented on this point to your Lordships may not have given full effect to the fact that this is not an alternative to consent —it is a form of consent. We are talking not about consent to a specific person, but to a group that is made up in this way.
I turn now to the definition of "proceedings". The intention here is to deal with the matter of proceedings in such a way as to make it possible for the licensed clinician to make a disclosure although he is not obliged to disclose. For the sake of argument, I shall take it that the clinician is a gentleman but the provisions would apply equally to the many distinguished ladies who operate in this area. The provision only withdraws the criminal sanction from the defined area. It does not oblige the clinician to make a disclosure. It states that those who make disclosures in the defined circumstances will not be subject to a criminal offence. That is all.
The main definition of "proceedings" would be legal proceedings. The idea is that if the clinician considers that the disclosure is necessary either for purposes preliminary to proceedings or for purposes of or in connection with proceedings, he would be authorised to make a disclosure. The word "proceedings" is intended to include any formal procedure for dealing with a complaint against a clinician. The secondary complaints procedures of the General Medical Council and those relating to nurses are, of course, included.
However, there might be other types of formal procedure. I refer, for example, to disciplinary procedures in the National Health Service. It would not be right for a clinician who was accused of doing something wrong in relation to one of these treatments not to be able properly to defend himself. In considering whether to make the disclosure, the clinician would have to decide whether he was entitled

1379
to do so, but if the clinician were faced with criminal proceedings over the disclosure, the ultimate judgment would be for the court. Your Lordships will not forget that, but for the exceptions, a disclosure is subject to criminal offence. We want to provide reasonable cover for licensed clinicians so that they can use their judgment in this area. However, their judgment will be confined by these matters—first, that the disclosure is necessary and, secondly, that it is for the purposes of proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether proceedings could include divorce proceedings. I have some difficulty in seeing how such information could be particularly relevant in divorce proceedings but if it were necessary for divorce proceedings, the matter could be properly covered. However, it would be for the clinician to decide whether, in his judgment, it was appropriate to make the disclosure.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked me to say something about the effects of the provisions in relation to the common law. I can do this briefly in my present circumstances. The position is that the common law protects confidential information in a general way. The Government felt—and your Lordships agreed—that that was not sufficient and that in this area we should have an additional criminal sanction. I repeat that it is an additional sanction. When we release the criminal sanction, it does not affect the scope of the general protection of confidential information which applies to those who receive the information knowing that it is confidential.
I believe that I have dealt with the detailed points that have been raised. I should add that the authority proposes to issue guidance to licensed clinicians in this area to help them decide whether to make disclosures in particular cases. That kind of practical guidance is, of course, subject to amendment in the light of experience. I am grateful to your Lordships for your support for the power to make further exceptions if practice should demonstrate them to be necessary, subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that we have proceeded in such a cautious way that only further exceptions are to be contemplated rather than going back in the way that he thought might be possible. With some confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated I had earlier, I renew my Motion that your Lordships should give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that there one or two drafting errors which have already caused noble Lords a certain amount of confusion. I take complete responsibility for them and I shall put them right if your Lordships have the Bill.
1380
In Clause 1, line 12, "educational needs of" should read,
"special educational provision that should be made for".
In Clause 2(a) "section 5(5) (c)" should read "section 5(7) (c)". In Clause 3(2), with regard to one of the new powers for the parent, after line 17,
"A parent shall have a right of appeal against a decision of a local education authority to",
there should be inserted the words,
"refuse to make a statement or cease to maintain a statement".
The last line of Clause 4 should read "section 8(2)" and not "section 8(1)". There are also consequential amendments to Section 5(6) and to Section 8(1) (a) in the schedule. I apologise for those errors. I shall introduce amendments in Committee to put matters right.
This Bill is concerned with an improved appellate structure against assessments and statements of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981. It affords new rights to parents which may he exercised in the interests of the welfare of their children who have learning difficulties, as defined by Section 1 of the 1981 Act.
At the outset it is right that your Lordships should know that by a series of case law decisions the courts have established two important and fundamental principles that affect the application of the Act. The first is that if suitable provision is not available within the maintained sector it must be made then outside the maintained sector at the expense of the local authority. If no special school is available, if such be appropriate provision, in the area, then provision must be made elsewhere outside the area.
The second important decision—there are three but I shall not trouble your Lordships with technicalities —is that, contrary to general belief, financial constraints on local authority spending are wholly irrelevant. The obligation to comply with these statutory provisions is mandatory. Such is the state of the law as an introduction to these amendments.
It is a modest Bill, at all events at present, of very limited scope. Of course the hope is that with your Lordships' help one will be able to improve the Bill as it goes through its various stages in the House and make it a much better provision. In no way does it interfere with the intendment of the 1981 Act which sought to give effect to the key proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in her report, proposals to which it is understood the noble Baroness still adheres. It is understood that the noble Baroness will seek during the passage of the Bill to make good certain omissions which my drafting has left. Those indeed will be welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Indeed it is in the wake of the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on 20th November 1991 in which it became wholly apparent on all sides of the House that substantial amendments were required to the appellate structure of the Act that I discussed this matter with my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness. At his suggestion —he was then, so to speak, appearing for the department—I wrote a letter to the department and drafted an agenda for discussion. In deference to my noble friend's

1381
interest, perhaps I may refer to these documents as the Cavendish papers because some of the suggestions in the papers are carried into the Bill. Other items in the Cavendish papers were not carried into the Bill on purpose because they were difficult to draft and they were more concerned with the problem of the shortage of speech therapists, training and guidelines, which were Items 5 and 6 of the Cavendish papers. But my noble friend Lady Blatch has taken these under her wing and they are currently being dealt with by the Government.
Other proposals in the Cavendish papers as to the removal of the appellate function of the Secretary of State and the setting up of a reconstituted appeals committee sitting with a legally qualified chairman whose procedures would be governed by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, a statutory tribunal from which there would be no appeal—a single-tier appellate structure instead of the two-tier structure which we have now—I did not draft into the Bill. I did it, I think, because I was for once rather timid. I am not sure whether I was right or wrong. I have discussed this matter with the department, which has at the moment an open mind. At least it is now accepted that the existing appellate structure ought to be amended. The question is how, with your Lordships' help—I certainly need your Lordships' help—this should best be done.
The approach adopted in the Bill is, I suppose, the minimalist approach. I adopted it because at the time I drafted the Bill I did not realise that there would be, so to speak, a totally new breath of fresh air in this matter and that the Government were going to accept in principle that something had to he done. So I adopted the minimalist approach, retaining the existing structure. I thought that I ought to owe your Lordships that explanation. It enlarges the existing appellate structure subject to certain safeguards that I have drafted into the Bill—to which, with your Lordships' leave, I may come to later—and it retains to a certain extent an appeal from the appeals committee against the decisions of the appeals committee on statements.
I have also introduced a qualifying provision on the appellate functions of the Secretary of State. That ensures that he must comply with the principles of natural justice, and not reach his decision on reports handed to him within the department by the inspectors on which the parties to the appeal have had no opportunity whatever to comment. That has given rise to serious problems in the courts—certainly in two cases, both of which I have been concerned with. It is a matter which should be put into the Bill and not be argued about at vast expense in the courts.
It will be a matter for your Lordships' consideration whether the approach adopted by the Bill for the appellate structure, which of course is crucial, or the Cavendish paper approach is preferred; or, indeed, whether some other measures are appropriate. As I have said—and it is now accepted by the Government—the situation is far from satisfactory. Substantial reform is requisite.
1382
In the past year or so about two-thirds of the appeals to the Secretary of State from the decisions of the appeal committees have involved children with special learning difficulties. The main purpose of the Bill is to generate discussion and evoke amendments, so that the situation may be resolved to the satisfaction of your Lordships' House and to the satisfaction of government.
We had an all-party meeting on the Bill, under the auspices of my noble friend Lady Faithful]. It was attended by the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock, Lady Blackstone and Lady David, together with other noble Lords. It was a very constructive meeting. It was clear that there was general agreement on substantial matters, and that the matter was being approached, quite rightly, on a wholly non-party basis. I approach it from these Benches in that fashion.
As to the structure of the Bill, I am afraid that it is complex. That is because the 1981 Act is a desperately complex provision, and to try to get it right, one has to ride along with that complexity. There are, first, mandatory statutory assessments and then, later, statements. There is a mandatory statutory duty to assess the special needs of the child under Section 5(1) of the schedule. I had the Keeling schedules prepared because without them, quite frankly, it is very difficult to follow what on earth is going on. But, having made an assessment, the LEA has a discretion whether to determine the special educational provision that should be made. There is no way that one can attack that discretion in a court of law. Therefore, right at the beginning of the road there is a gap and something that needs to be done.
In the Keeling schedules to the Bill, I have set out Sections 5 and 8 of the Education Act 1981. Your Lordships will find that I have introduced an entirely new structure for consideration. It imposes a six-month time limit during which the decision of whether to determine the special educational provision must be given. It also enlarges the jurisdiction of the appeal committee. The enlargement is of course important and is set out in heavy type in the schedule.
I have already dealt with the contents of subsection (6). Subsection (7) provides for the six-month period. It also provides for the notification in writing to the parent of the decision and of the reasons for making it, the "parent's right of appeal" to an appeal committee and the obligation to,
"make arrangements for enabling the parent of the child to appeal".
Then, under subsection (8), the new powers of the appeal committee are, if it thinks fit, to direct that a new assessment be made, to direct that a special educational provision be determined by the education authority, or to dismiss the appeal.
One of the problems is that the mandatory provisions to make a statement under subsection 7(1) of the Act only bite if the LEA is of the opinion, after assessment, that it should determine the special education provision which should be made for the child. But, as I have said—and I make the point again believing, as I do, that it is so important—if as a matter of discretion, or for some reason concerned

1383
with financial constraints, the LEA makes a decision not to make a statement, there is nothing anyone can do about it. Hence the importance of the new structure to rectify the gap. Therefore, we have introduced subsections (6) to (8). Moreover, for the sake of clarity, we have enshrined that right in the amendment to Clause 3(2)—namely the new subsection (1A)—which I have already mentioned. That replaces the old Section 5(6) whereby if the LEA, after having made an assessment, decides that it is not required to determine the special educational provision which should be made, the parent may appeal to the Secretary of State.
But, first, that is not a proper appeal. It is done in writing and is not like the appeal committee procedure in which the parties are represented, where they are examined and cross-examined and where the proceedings are conducted with all due and proper formality. They are written representations to the Secretary of State; but he can do virtually nothing. I say that because under Section 5(8) as it stands—which I should like to remove, if I can—where a parent has appealed to the Secretary of State, the latter has only the power to direct the LEA to reconsider. In other words, there are no teeth, there is no bite and no sanction. It is a cumbersome and far from satisfactory process. As I have said, representations to the Secretary of State in that context are not a real hearing at all in any sense of the word.
I turn now to statements. Again, I am afraid that this is also complex because of the two-tier structure. However, perhaps I may explain it simply to your Lordships. There is a two-tier appellate structure against the special educational provision in the statement. Under Section 8(1) to (5) in the schedule a parent goes to the appeal committee. Under subsections (6) and (7) a parent applies to the Secretary of State where, on appeal, the appeal committee confirms the LEA, or where the LEA makes a decision on a case remitted to it by the appeal committee and the parent is dissatisfied.
It is accepted that that appeal on a remitted case direct from the LEA direct to the Secretary of State is rather cumbersome. But it is expected that the appeal committee will exercise the new power to amend the statement under Section 8(4) (c). This is an entirely new provision that I fear is desperately controversial.
It may well be that your Lordships would introduce an amendment to the contrary. But some resolution must be found. This would mean that the amendment of the statement by the LEA would be final and not subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. In effect that would mean in practice that the only appeal to the Secretary of State is against the decision of the appeal committee confirming the decision of the LEA.
There is a new provision that the appeal committee should have a new power to dismiss an appeal; again a decision which would be final. There is the new subsection (1A) to which I have referred which will have the effect of reversing two wholly unacceptable decisions in the Isle of Wight cases, which were quite correctly made as a matter of legal construction, which said that the LEA, which had maintained the statement, could just as a matter of discretion cease to maintain the statement. It had to give no reasons. It
1384
was a matter of discretion. I am adding to subsection (1A): there is a right of appeal against the decision of the authority to refuse to maintain a statement.
Clause 4 is consequential. But there is a new provision of safeguard in Section 8(8); that is the requirement that the Secretary of State, on appeal—if your Lordships retain the existing two-tier structure —is to be governed by this rule of natural justice.
There is another new safeguard in Clause 2 of the Bill. It affects the composition of the appeal committee and deals with the point put quite simply by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that the local education authority should not sit there as judges in its own cause. In other words members of the committee who have been concerned in making the decision under appeal should not be allowed to sit.
For your Lordships' assistance before I sit down, the composition of the appeal committee is dealt with in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1980. The members are nominated by the local authority. There are two categories of members; three, five or seven members sit together. The first category are members of the LEA or of any education committee of the authority and the second category are persons who are not members of the authority or of any education committee. It is provided that those within the first category, (a), shall not outnumber (b) by more than one. But this gives the local authority members and the members of the education committee a predominance. In practice—I shall not go into detail—that has not been at all satisfactory.
Broadly speaking, that is the need for the Bill and the proposals with which we have to seek to deal. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are clearly aspects of the Education Act 1981 which are not working as well as they should. The system dealing with the identification and assessment of children with special needs ought to be improved and therefore we on these Benches welcome the Bill in principle. Indeed, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for the work he has done in preparing it. I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House will share my view in this respect.
There are however some parts of the Bill as presently drafted which we believe do require some amendment. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has accepted that, but I shall come to those later.
There are also some wider issues concerning special needs provision which now need attention, which go beyond the contents of the Bill and on which it would be helpful to know the Government's intention. I am not sure what the Minister will say about the Bill tonight, nor to what extent the Government intend to cover special educational needs in the White Paper or indeed in the legislation that we understand is planned for the autumn. Perhaps we shall hear a little about that later.

1385
It is of great importance that everything possible is done to support children with special needs at school and to help their parents cope with those needs. With proper support many of these children will come through and be able to lead independent and successful lives as adults. Without them they will fail to get near their potential achievement levels and their later lives may be blighted by this failure. The greater number of such children who can be educated in mainstream schools the better. Much of the 1981 Act was about how to achieve that.
In seeking to amend the Act I therefore hope that your Lordships' House will not fall into the trap of being over-critical of this piece of legislation. It was in many senses a landmark in our provision for children with special educational needs. It sought to provide a legislative framework for the excellent report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her committee. I am delighted that she will be speaking later in the debate today. It set out the main principles of her report: the right to education in ordinary schools; governors' responsibility to see that pupils' needs are identified and met and the right of parents to take part in decisions about their children's schooling. That, of course, is central to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wishes to achieve.
The main underlying problem that we face today is an unintended consequence of the Education Reform Act 1988 rather than a direct result of the 1981 Act. This is that there has been a considerable increase in the demand for statements from parents. This of course has implications for resources and is likely to affect the time it takes for a local education authority to deal with individual requests for statements.
The 1981 Act demands that a statement is made when provision "generally made" in a school is not adequate to meet a pupil's special educational needs. The increase in the demand for statements seems likely therefore to reflect a drop in "generally made" provision. What appears to have happened is that since the introduction of LMS after the 1988 Act schools have found it more and more difficult to meet special educational needs from their allocated budgets. So statements are seen as a way of either getting more resources or removing children from ordinary schools who are both expensive to educate and whose performance at school might have an adverse effect on the school's league table ratings. That is something we want to avoid. I understand that the Audit Commission and HMI are reporting on these and other matters. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when the report is due to be published.
As far as I know, it has always been accepted that statements should not be provided for more than about 2 per cent. of pupils. I believe that that is what the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, proposes. LEAs and schools do not have unlimited resources. As my former colleague, Professor Klaus Wedell, one of the country's leading experts on special educational needs provision, has said:
"The statement procedure in fact represents a way of selecting which pupils should be given priority"
1386
for special provision. At the same time, under the procedure all the parties should know how provision is to match the child's needs and there should be regular evaluation to ensure that aims are being met.
Escalating demands for statements must clearly be avoided—I am sure that your Lordships agree—if we are not to prolong even further the period that parents have to wait while statements are being prepared. One problem is that no one is altogether clear about what the levels of "generally made" provision should be. LEAs are now required to report on their special needs provision, including what is done in ordinary schools. The Department of Education is meant to monitor that provision. The problem is that no one is sure what the standards should be. That is complicated by the present provision for the local management of schools. Even if it is known what the standards should be, it is not clear how they are to be monitored under the new arrangements for school inspection. Perhaps the Minister will help us by saying what the Government plan to do about that under the new system. Will HMI be made available for that task or not?
Without consistent standards, including the vital matter of open admission to schools for those with special needs, one of the fundamental principles of the 1981 Act will not be implemented, and more and more parents will, with justice, demand statements. At the heart of this question, as at the heart of so many, lies the issue of adequate resources, including adequate resources for locally managed schools. The Government must address the matter in the light of their findings from the reports by LEAs in response to Circular 7/91. It would be useful to know whether the Government intend to publish those findings, given their new commitment to open government.
Perhaps I may now turn to the more specific issues raised in the Bill. Parents' rights are immensely important in this area. Parents faced with the prospect of a child who has learning difficulties are bound to be anxious and interested if they are good parents. In strengthening their rights, I have every sympathy with the Bill; but we must be sure that what is proposed is practical and achievable and that it will not leave those parents and their children in any way worse off.
Without going into too much detail—that can be done in Committee—I should like to run through the main provisions, indicating where we from these Benches support the Bill and where we have some reservations. I shall begin with the time limit on statements. It is of course intolerable that parents should have to wait—in some cases for as long as a year. What is not certain is how often the guidelines that statements should be completed within six months are ignored. We have only anecdotal evidence about that matter.
The question that we need to consider is whether what is proposed in the Bill is too rigid. While there should be strong pressures on local authorities to complete statements within six months, should we not allow for some flexibility to deal with the very difficult cases that sometimes occur? The problem is that in such cases various different agencies must be involved in the preparation of statements. It is not just the

1387
education authority and the schools. For example, the advice of various health service professionals may need to be sought. There are sometimes difficulties in getting parents to take children for assessment appointments with those different agencies, and time can be lost in arranging those appointments and persuading parents to keep them. I hope that it will be possible to amend the Bill to allow for some flexibility even though I accept in principle that a tough time limit is desirable.
The proposal for a local appeal procedure is highly desirable in cases where an LEA decides not to make a statement after a child has been assessed. Similarly, we welcome a local appeal procedure against an LEA decision to cease to maintain a statement and the requirement that an LEA tells parents about their right of appeal in such circumstances. It would be disgraceful if a local authority did not provide that information to parents.
It must also be right that the Secretary of State, when determining an appeal, should make available any information he has received so that the interested parties can comment. There might also be a time limit on the Secretary of State. We have had examples of central government departments taking an inordinately long time to deal with such cases. There should be a requirement on the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decision.
I am, however, less sanguine about the Bill's proposal to remove from appeal committees all elected members of LEAs. While it would be wrong for such people to be in a majority, to remove them altogether—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. We are not trying to do that. It is only those who have been concerned in the decision-making process under appeal.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving that clarification. It would be unusual for an elected member to become involved in a decision about a case; it is the officers who normally make such decisions. Local authority members often review critically decisions made by their officers, not just in this area but in many others. They often have a good deal of knowledge and expertise about the issues as well as being capable of independent judgment. I accept that if a member had been directly involved in an earlier decision relating to an individual case, it would be desirable for that person not to be a member of the appeal committee.
That brings me to the last matter upon which I wish to comment. The Bill provides new powers for appeal committees to amend a statement of special educational needs when a parent appeals. On the face of it, that looks all right; but, in practice, it runs the risk of lay groups overturning the conclusions of a professional assessment within democratically agreed LEA policies. I wonder whether that can be right. As a lay person on an appeal committee, I should be reluctant to involve myself in decisions about appropriate treatment for a pupil. The danger is that some children may be inappropriately placed because of a lay committee's insufficient knowledge. It may
1388
also lead to escalating costs which in these days of financial constraint, as I am sure the Minister will agree, local authorities cannot meet.
However, apart from those reservations we welcome the Bill and hope that the Government will consider favourably what it proposes, perhaps doing so in the somewhat wider context of ensuring that the general provisions in schools are adequate in the context of LMS and after the publication of the Audit Commission/HMI report when we should be clear about some of the broader issues.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Addington: The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, provides a welcome opportunity to discuss the workings of the 1981 Education Act which broke a tremendous amount of new ground. That Act has been tremendously helpful to many bodies in their efforts to bring special educational needs to the forefront of education planning.
The Bill is timely because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has just mentioned, our education system has experienced a period of tremendous upheaval. Therefore changes are bound to be required in virtually all our education legislation. That process is inevitable and we shall need time to catch up with all the changes.
The problem of a lack of resources has been mentioned. That problem has bedevilled the area of special educational needs for as long as those needs have been recognised as a separate area within education. Indeed the provisions of the 1981 Act have always been at the mercy of the assessment of priorities and the allocation of funds. Whether that is the fault of local authorities or government or a combination of the two is a subject which can be debated, and probably will be debated, for as long as both those organisations exist in any form. However, the provision which ensures that the appropriate funds are available will guarantee the effective working of any legislation in this field as in other fields.
I wish to make a few brief comments on the Bill. I do not think anyone can have any objection to any of the aims of the Bill. A more flexible approach should be adopted when dealing with special educational needs. Some effective appeal procedure should be put in place. I do not think anyone could find fault with those principles. Once we have accepted those principles, it is merely a matter of how we put them into operation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, thought that some of the provisions of the Bill were somewhat questionable. However, the provision of the six month guarantee was a provision that appealed to me the most as it will act as an enforcement tool. Again, the problem of funding arises, but there needs to be some limitation on the length of time taken to implement the provision. However, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, a flexible approach needs to be adopted when faced with special circumstances. I believe that

1389
there should be a fixed period of time by which some decision should be reached and some justification should have to be given for any delay.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we should consider the matter of the members of the appeal committee. Local education authorities should have some input there but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has pointed out, they are not necessarily excluded. Therefore I feel there are grounds for a compromise here. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House would have little difficulty in reaching a workable solution. Ultimately if we are to make this Bill and this whole area a success, we must continue to review this matter as more research is carried out into how to help those with special educational needs and how to integrate those with special educational needs into our education system or into making provision for them outside the mainstream system. That is another area of debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has referred to this matter on numerous occasions. We must consider whether we have placed the correct emphasis on integration or on making provision outside the mainstream system.
To illustrate the requirements of those with special educational needs I give the example of a person in a wheelchair and a person with dyslexia. A person in a wheelchair may have difficulty in getting to a lesson whereas a person with dyslexia may be able to get to a lesson but he may not be able to understand dictation or what is written on a blackboard. It is virtually impossible to say whether or not people with special educational needs should be integrated into the mainstream system. This Bill may be the first step in a whole process of reassessing the way in which we deal with people with special educational needs and in the process of deciding how we incorporate such measures into the 1988 education Act. We shall need to consider how we can bring special educational needs more to the fore so that the country does not waste so many human resources and we do not wreck so many lives.
5.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in this debate. I give the Bill a general welcome and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing it. My information is that the 1981 Act operates unevenly in different parts of the country. It is not entirely clear, at least to me, what the reasons for that are. It seems to me that what this Bill attempts to tackle will therefore be welcome.
The Bill is particularly welcome at this time because, although it is right as a matter of policy to try to incorporate into the general educational system as many children as possible who have special educational needs, that policy is again working a little unevenly. There are many parents of children with special educational needs who at present are anxious whether there will be full and proper provision for their children. As I read the Bill, it secures the position of those parents in a much more acceptable way than is evident in the 1981 Act. For that reason the Bill will
1390
reassure parents who in many respects carry a heavy burden when they are responsible for children with special educational needs.
I await with interest the comments of the Government because I recognise that there may be points about the Bill of which I am as yet unaware. However, in general terms I support the Bill and I hope that it will, in this or some amended form, reach the statute book.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend for providing an opportunity to consider and, if appropriate, to change the arrangements that now exist for making provision for children with special educational needs.
I personally am deeply grateful to my noble friend for making the gracious and generous provision of a Keeling Schedule at the end of the Bill as it is drafted so that it is much easier to understand the Bill. I wish others had more frequent resort to that helpful device.
In 1988 I had the honour to chair a committee of inquiry which reported in 1989. Our remit was to inquire into discipline in schools and to make recommendations. Our terms of reference were very wide because indiscipline was defined as anything that militated against the performance by a school of its proper function which was to enable young people to develop their full potential for adult life.
A very important factor in the ability of a school to do its job properly overall and to secure the good behaviour of all its pupils is the extent to which it is able to meet the educational needs of its pupils. Pupils whose needs are not met and who are frustrated in the struggle for achievement, which all your Lordships will remember so clearly from your school days, do not only suffer themselves but make others suffer too. They are a disruptive influence in the school at which they are pupils.
We discovered in the course of our inquiries that it was then reliably estimated that at any one time about 20 per cent. of the pupil population had special educational needs and that a tenth of those, or 2 per cent. of the total, were subject to statements, the effect of which was to secure for them treatment in some way different from the rest of the children and more appropriate to their special needs. The question that my noble friend is addressing is not, therefore, trivial or peripheral to the major issues of education for two reasons.
First, the number of individual children directly affected is substantial. Exactly how substantial I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell us. Is statementing still running at the 2 per cent. which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, recommended or has it changed? If it has changed, is this because of a change in need, a change in measurement of need, or a change in policy?
Is it true, as I have heard it suggested, that one LEA at least has actually given a directive to its staff that no more statements shall be made? I ask that question so that my noble friend can kill the rumour if, as I very much hope, it is false, or take appropriate action if it

1391
is true. If it is true, that is a worsening of a situation to which we had already drawn attention in our report.
I wish to quote from paragraph 31 of chapter six which states,
"provision in special schools for pupils with special needs tends to be expensive. LEAs have many competing priorities for expenditure. We have been told that at least one LEA does not recognise emotional and behavioural difficulties as a reason for making special provision because it is not considered to be specifically a learning difficulty".
We went on, of course, to say that we found this to be unacceptable. Can my noble friend tell me whether this problem has been addressed since we reported and whether there are still any authorities taking this unacceptable line now?
We concluded the paragraph by stating the obvious but important fact that children who exhibit such disturbed patterns of behaviour that they cannot benefit properly from mainstream schooling
"can disrupt the education of other children".
That is the second reason that the issues broached by my noble friend's Bill are neither trivial nor peripheral.
Where there is need and where the system does not deliver the special treatment or provisions required to meet it, either promptly or at all, not only will the life chances of those particular children be reduced, those of other children will be affected also. My noble friend's concern is not only with the 2 per cent. but with all the others affected by them.
Learning is not an easy process for most of us. Glances your Lordships have attracted by speaking too loudly in the Library of the House while other noble Lords were preparing to speak will have reminded your Lordships of that if you had forgotten.
If one garrulous Peer can snap the thread of concentration of a dozen others working in otherwise ideal conditions, imagine what the effect of a couple of determined school children can be on the work of 20 or 30 others with nowhere else to go—and the diversion from them of the energy of the teacher to contain and diffuse the difficulty. That may be repeated time and again in lesson after lesson while the process of assessment continues and statementing is withheld. Of course children should be taught, wherever possible, in the school attended by their friends and neighbours. However, where that becomes impossible because of genuine needs of this sort the call for alternative arrangements is urgent.
We were therefore deeply concerned to discover in 1988 that evidence had already been given to the House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee in 1986–87 that some LEAs were taking far too long to assess and make statements. We could find no significant progress since that committee reported. We learned that it was not uncommon for the process to take a year or more. We received evidence ourselves of the deep stresses on both pupils and their schools when that happens.
One factor in that quite unacceptable situation was the provision of personnel by local education authorities to carry out the assessments on which the statements were based. We found that in 1987–88 the ratio of educational psychologists to pupils aged 5 to
1392
16 varied very widely from authority to authority—from 1:2,500 in some to 1:8,000 in others according to figures published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
At that time the Department of Education and Science had recently issued a draft circular to replace DES 1/83 and Welsh Office Circular 5/83 stating that:
"The Secretary of State expects that statements should be processed within 6 months".
It went on to say that anything longer should be exceptional. We therefore recommended (in paragraph 37) that local education authorities should set and maintain an establishment of educational psychologists adequate to achieve the target of six months for the processing of statements of special educational needs specified by the DES, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office in the draft circular. That was accepted by the Government, along with virtually all our other recommendations, and I hope that my noble friend can tell us what is now the position in that regard.
Whatever her reply, even if she quarrels with the means proposed she will find it difficult to resist the proposal in Clause 1 of my noble friend's Bill that six months should in future be the maximum time allowed for that process as it is the time Her Majesty's Government themselves recommended. The only difference between my noble friend the sponsor of the Bill and my noble friend the Minister of State's department is that, whereas the department's circular makes reference to exceptional circumstances, his Bill, as far as I can see, does not. If I am wrong my noble friend will correct me in Committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that is quite right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. My noble friend the Minister will doubtless argue that there are many hard cases and my noble friend Lord Campbell will no doubt argue that they make bad law. We shall listen with deep interest and be persuaded by whichever is the most persuasive. At present I tend to favour some letout, but the least we can expect is that the most persuasive argument will be that which puts forward the most reliable way of securing that such cases are dealt with both thoroughly and within a maximum period of six months, does not offer to recognise as "exceptionally difficult" more than a modest proportion of cases and does not provide for those cases to be sidelined for indefinite periods. There have to be buffers even at the end of the siding.
The appeal provisions in the remaining clauses of the Bill are important and highly constructive. However, my noble friend's expertise in such matters is so much greater than mine that I do not propose to delay your Lordships with my views on them, beyond one point which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I thought that she had it right before she was helpfully interrupted by my noble friend. It seems to me that Clause 2 has the effect, as drafted, of excluding any member of a local education authority from an appeal committee. That may not be my noble friend's intention and it may not be the effect

1393
of the clause. Nevertheless, it is a matter which we should consider in Committee because I believe that some input to those committees from the local education authorities would be highly constructive.
It remains only to ask my noble friend the Minister to look kindly on a Bill which addresses a problem which was already pressing in 1988, which causes great distress to some and significant harm to many, and which I would have expected to have been dealt with in the three years which have now elapsed since our report was published.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have written to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to say that I have to leave at 6.30 p.m. I had hoped that the debate would be over but it now looks as if it will not be. I apologise to any other noble Lords whose speeches I shall not hear. I shall read the reports of their speeches with great attention.
I know that we are all very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has taken the trouble to bring the Bill before the House. As he said, it proposes a six-month time limit for statementing procedures undertaken by LEAs and changes the arrangements for appeals against assessments and statements of educational need made under the terms of the 1981 Act. To both of those aims I can give general support but will have a few suggestions and criticisms to make which I hope the noble Lord will find that he can accept when we come to Committee stage.
I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord has brought forward this amendment Bill now because I know that a great many people involved in education and the working of the Act have concerns about what is happening. Everyone who has spoken has made that point.
The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, published in 1978 estimated that about 2 per cent. of all children would require specific protection and procedures to meet their special educational needs. That forecast has not been borne out in practice. Some counties have over 4 per cent. of their school populations with statements. That presents problems both as regards the availability of professional time and expertise to make the assessments and the additional costs of meeting the requirements in the statements. One south eastern county has found that the cost of supporting its pupils with statements in mainstream schools has increased ninefold in the four years to 1991–92 to some £4 million. From other sources and from parents one hears of delays in the making of statements, for whatever reason—it may be a shortage of professionals or fear of the financial commitment. It is that point which the Bill addresses.
Several interest groups, and a number of Peers, are pressing for a wide-ranging review of the 1981 Act. There is no wish to go back on the basic principle of the Act—the maximum sensible integration of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools—but rather on the operation of the timetables and procedures for assessment and statementing and the financing of the provision needed. I should also
1394
like to see an assessment of how well integration is working and whether there is always complete integration or instead the creation of units which remain very much units within the mainstream schools where there is not much mixing.
We heard that the Audit Commission and HMI engaged in a joint study of special needs, which will appear shortly. We hope that that will point the way to what needs to be done. We have, too, the promise of a White Paper in the late summer or the autumn. I should like to see the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, chair a new committee to review the working of the Act after 11 years and to bring forward updated recommendations.
There is widespread concern about the effect that formula funding may have now that all schools manage their own financial affairs under LMS. Under formula funding it is no longer open to the LEA to add staffing or other resources to individual school budgets on the merits of the case. If special needs funding is to be part of a formula-based element of school budgets then all schools are treated equally irrespective of whether they have an above or below average share of statemented pupils.
The alternative, under present arrangements, is for statements to carry with them specific funding additions to school budgets. Increasingly schools can be expected to look for such additions. This is both an engine for increased statementing and in tension with the principle of maximum delegation to schools. But if increased levels of specific budget addition are not agreed, there may develop an increased reluctance by schools to accommodate a child with special needs. One fears too the non-acceptance or removal from the ordinary school of an expensive to educate child whose learning outcomes and examination results may seem likely to detract from that school's published results, which governors fear may affect the popularity of the school. That needs to be examined.
Perhaps I may make a few points on the Bill. There could be very difficult or complex cases in which assessments and statements take more than six months—that point has already been made—possibly because of shortage of staff with professional expertise or perhaps shortage of cash. It seems to me that in those cases the LEA should give an explanation of the reasons for the delay. There should be a little flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, requested, and perhaps there will be an opportunity to put that into the Bill.
With regard to the composition and powers of the appeal committee, the proposal for simpler arrangements seems right. But there is justifiable concern on the part of LEAs and the local authority associations about the prospect of reduced LEA input into what will remain effectively an educational decision having significant resource implications in some cases. It seems wrong in principle that parents should have the right of further appeal to the Secretary of State while the LEA has no right of appeal against an amended statement, which may have significant financial implications and to which it has not been a party. I also misunderstood the point about the LEA

1395
representative on the appeal committee, but I presume that the author of the Bill understands the issue and so I shall not pursue it.
I query the proposal in Clause 3(3) which would empower an appeal committee to amend a statement as it deemed appropriate. The appeal committee might not have a member with the professional knowledge which enables it to do so. It is possible that the appeal committee might not amend the statement to suit the parents' wishes.
Perhaps I may say a few final words on the education of young people with special educational needs who remain at an educational establishment after the age of 16. Where a young person is covered by a statement, there is a duty on the authority to make that provision. But that duty does not extend to cover students aged 16 to 19 in further education or training. The situation has been made worse by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which excludes all young people in the new FE sector from the 1981 Act provision. Far from extending the scope of the 1981 Act to all young people in education and training, it excludes a further tranche—those in sixth-form colleges—leaving the duty applying only to those still in schools. I strongly believe that we should look again at this provision. I hope that the House will be willing to accept an amendment along those lines.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the DES pamphlet Children with special needs, published in February this year, which has on it the words "Parent's Charter". Page 17, under the paragraph headed "Choices after 16", reads:
"Education for young people with special educational needs does not stop at 16. Depending on his or her particular interests and aptitudes, a young person can continue to have his or her needs met by staying on at an ordinary or special school, or by moving to a sixth form college or a further education college".
Now that is just not right. I hope that the Minister can make some comment when she replies. Otherwise, I wish the Bill well and hope that it has an easy passage through the House.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I speak briefly in support of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for having taken so much trouble over it and for giving the House a chance to look at some of the areas in which the 1981 Act is not succeeding.
The Bill seeks to remedy some quite manifest shortcomings in the implementation of the 1981 Act. In accordance with the provision of that Act and the spirit of subsequent educational legislation, it places a strong emphasis on the rights of parents to ensure proper provision within a reasonable time to meet the special needs of their children. I should prefer a certain flexibility in the period of six months proposed. However, it should be a general aim. Certainly the decision of a local authority whether to make a statement on a child should be made far more speedily than often is the case.
It is right that if the authority decides not to make a statement, the parents should have the right of appeal to a genuinely independent appeal committee.
1396
Again, it is important that parents should have a right of appeal to such a committee if an authority decides that it does not wish or cannot maintain a statement for a child.
The provision in the Bill for parents to he informed of any reports to the Secretary of State from the HMI in the case of an appeal against a statement is undoubtedly needed and is a matter of natural justice. It seems to me very important that the appeal committee should be totally independent of the LEA and able to propose its own revision of a statement. But I suspect that with regard to both those points there will be difficulties in practice. I agree that the LEA should at any rate be able to give its knowledge and expertise to the appeal committee, though it should not be by any means in the majority. It will be difficult for the LEA if the new proposal or revision by the appeal committee turns out to have important resource implications, as they probably will. That is an area which will need to be clarified. It would be nice to be able to say that shortage of resources is no reason for an LEA not to make the recommended provision; but in practice that is an increasingly idealistic stand to take.
I believe that where this kind of new provision in the appeal committee comes in, we may find increasingly long and burdensome litigation following. Once again the time factor will become very important. Reference has mainly been made to how long it is for parents to wait; but for a child six months is an eternity in their school life before provision is made. I hope that whatever the final arrangements about the new style appeal committee, they will not need further litigation.
The consideration of resources lies behind all the points that have been made. That leads away from the present Bill to wider issues. It will not come as a surprise to noble Lords to learn that I am very worried about the implementation of the 1981 Act as a whole. The present Bill is designed to improve that implementation in certain respects but a great deal more is needed. After all, it is more than 10 years since the Act came into force. As we heard, in that time there have been innumerable changes in school education, changes which are still in rapid progress. For example, we can be less and less certain what the future powers and resources of local education authorities will be or over how many schools their writ will run. Therefore the time has come to reconsider some of the basic principles of the 1981 Act, to re-think them and to allocate responsibility for putting new principles into practice. I crave your Lordships' indulgence for straying so far from the confines of the Bill.
However, I shall confine myself to calling your Lordships' attention to three issues which I believe need fundamentally to be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the first: the provision of post-school education for young people after the age of 16. At present the responsibility for providing resources for such education is unclear. I have the honour to be a member of a body called the Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability. About two years ago it

1397
published guidance for disabled students on how to apply for higher, further or continuing education. On reading the handbook recently, it struck me that it is now completely useless. We shall have to begin the task of issuing another handbook. I have no idea what we can put in it at present. How young people with physical, sensory and intellectual disabilities should proceed to continuing education requires urgent consideration. It is of the greatest importance for those young people.
Secondly, in addressing the subject of children with special needs, the Parent's Charter referred to a small number of children for whom a statement would be issued by the local authority. In most cases it suggested that provision for a child's special needs would be made after a full assessment but without a statement being made or maintained. That was the intention of the report on the education of children with special needs. I believe that it was the intention of the 1981 Act. However, as we have heard today, in at least some authorities the number of statements has vastly increased, generally as a result of parental demand. Although there are a number of authorities in which statements are not frequently made, the overall projected increase in statements for 1993 is 12 per cent. The increase in requests for statements is more than three times that number.
There is a substantial increase in the demand by parents for statements. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the reason is clear. Money goes with a statemented child. Other provision must be found from normal school budgets. With the increased development of LMS—the devolvement of the management by schools of their budgets—and the pressure of such schools to raise the academic standards of the vast majority of children with no special needs, it is not surprising that the only security for provision for children with special needs appears to parents to be a statement which carries a legal obligation on the local authority to meet the need.
The resource implications of meeting special needs are daunting. As parents are increasingly regarded as customers or consumers with rights, the issue of statements has become an issue of rights which I fear will lead to more protracted and expensive litigation. Parental trust of local education authorities has been perhaps fatally eroded. Children with statements are becoming a class apart, just as the handicapped used to be considered as a class apart. The notion that was central to the 1981 Act of a continuum of special needs—it includes at one end the needs of exceptional mathematicians or musicians through the fairly modest needs of the temporarily deaf or the child who has missed a great deal of school through illness, to the non-ambulant, non-speaking, severely mentally and physically damaged disabled child—has been lost sight of as the number of statemented children rises and non-statemented children are left out of the need for special provision. As we have heard, 20 per cent. have that need. It is because the continuum of provision has been lost sight of that the role of the statement and the resources that go with it need to be reconsidered.
1398
The third and final area is a failure of the 1981 Act which has been referred to recently in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to it today. I believe it to be of fundamental importance. It is the provision for those children who used to be referred to as maladjusted children and are now known—in my view most clumsily and unfortunately—as children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
It is necessary to mention those children separately because their numbers are increasing extraordinarily fast and because provision for their education is lamentably inadequate. The fate of those children is of vast significance. It would not be an exaggeration to say that if we could get the educational provision for those children right, we could radically change the outlook for the control of crime and for our overcrowded prisons.
I shall not take up your Lordships' time by going into details. But at present far too many such children are being excluded from school either permanently and officially or, more worryingly still, temporarily and unofficially. The latter category is known as children on hold. There are no figures available for children on hold. The heads of many schools do not even know how many children in their school are in that position. But even for those children who are officially and permanently excluded from a school, for whom the local authority has an obligation to provide alternative education, often virtually no alternative provision is made. Sometimes the provision is pitifully inadequate—a mere hour or two hours a week of home tuition in a home not generally fitted up with a suitable schoolroom as one can imagine. I believe that it is a matter of extreme urgency to review the powers of schools to exclude pupils and the duties of local authorities, or of the Department of Education in the case of grant maintained schools, to provide suitable alternatives.
I believe that that will involve the opening or reopening of boarding schools. Boarding provision is virtually the only solution for many such children who are at the bottom of the line. I am thankful that the boarding provision provided must now conform with the demands of the Children Act and therefore will be subject to rigorous inspection. However, boarding schools should also be subject to rigorous inspection as regards the education that they provide.
An issue of extreme importance, as has been mentioned, is the future role of the inspectorate with regard to the provision of education for children with behavioural difficulties. We are awaiting the findings of the Audit Commission on the working of the 1981 Act. I believe that its report is due to be published next month and my informed guess is that it will make extremely gloomy reading. We are also looking forward to the publication of a White Paper in time for the new school year. It is hoped that it will contain proposals for the provision of all kinds of special needs, both for the most able and least able.
Although I warmly welcome the present Bill so far as it goes, I urge your Lordships to support the view that there is a need for more radical changes in legislation. I am well aware that the expectations of educational provision are higher than they were in

1399
1981 and that parents now think of themselves as having rights. The combination of those two factors leads to a demand for vast sums of money to be spent on the education of children with special needs. That money does not exist and will not be forthcoming. In my view we could do more without incurring enormous expenditure if we could revise the structures correctly and redefine the responsibilities. That will take time; but in the end it will be good for the children concerned and, importantly, it will represent long-term value for money. That applies in particular to the children who I persist in thinking of as maladjusted.
I apologise to your Lordships for carrying the discussion into such wide fields, and I fully understand the dangers of riding a hobby horse. Therefore, I shall conclude by saying that I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing the Bill. Not only has it given me a chance to get my hobby horse out of the stable again, but it may lead to a modest but important improvement in provision and to greater justice for those children and their parents.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, because I had the great honour to be chairman of the board of governors of a special school which she opened 10 years ago. Her famous report had just been published, and that was followed by the 1981 Act.
Most of us were excited about the new thinking produced by the noble Baroness's report, in particular that the needs of the child should be paramount. We expected that statements would lay out a list of the requirements of a particular handicapped child and that those needs would largely be met. However, I am afraid that in many LEAs the wheel has turned full circle. Often the statement is written in the context of the provision that is available rather than in the context of what is needed by a particular young person. The provisions may well be determined by budgetary restraint, replacement policy and resource implications. In addition, there is often a need for medical treatment by a physiotherapist, occupational therapist or speech therapist. The temptation to leave out of the statements such expensive treatments is obvious.
Like my noble friend Lord Elton, I have heard the rumour that, as a result of resource implications in recent years, some LEAs have operated a policy which avoids the writing of statements when it is thought that the resources do not exist within the authority. I shall be pleased to hear from my noble friend whether there is any truth in such tales. Parents who expect to receive a statement which is full in its description of their child's needs often receive one which instead is specific only in terms of the provision which a particular school in a local education authority can offer. Nowadays the statement often safeguards the local authority rather than the child.
As we heard from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, appeals are difficult. For instance, there is
1400
no right of appeal if the authority does not find a prima facie case to begin an assessment. The appeal committee is constituted by the local education authority and can often be seen to endorse the decision of the LEA's employees in carrying out policy generated by its officers and endorsed by its members. The appeal committee cannot reword or amend the statement. It can only refer it back either to the original assessment team or to a new team constituted from the same local authority's employees.
I was pleased to hear a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It was that, although young people are entitled to receive special education until the age of 19, in the great majority of cases there is a reluctance on the part of many LEAs to maintain statements beyond the age of 16. Parents have few rights in that matter.
Those are some of the difficulties which parents run into as regards the statementing of their children and their lack of a fair appeals procedure. I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the Bill. I am aware of the amount of time that he has taken in drafting it and in seeking assistance from all quarters. I was also grateful to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack who perhaps stretched out his summing up of the previous business in order that my noble friend could be in the Chamber to introduce his Bill. Noble Lords would have been sad if he had not made it.
Although I know that my noble friend has worked hard in drafting the Bill, I am unclear about exactly how far it goes and what it states. He read out a number of changes that he had effected to the Bill. He said that Clause 3(2) will insert the following words into the 1981 Act:
"A parent shall have a right of appeal against a decision of a local education authority to refuse to make a statement or to cease to maintain a statement under section 7".
Those words do not appear on the face of the Bill. As a good little boy and a Member of your Lordships' House I was brought up to understand that words which do not appear on the face of a Bill count for nothing. Therefore, a number of amendments must be made in Committee.
I support the Bill but in Committee I shall wish to strengthen it in many ways. I shall probably fall out with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, because I do not believe that the period of six months should be extended. Six months is a long time in the life of a school child with such difficulties and that of the parents. I do not agree with extending that in any way beyond six months, except in extremely unlikely circumstances. Also, for the reasons I have given, I believe that the local education authorities should be kept as far removed as possible from any form of appeal committee. Very often the people who take decisions of principle as to whether or not to close a certain school or to spend money on special education have friends who hear the appeals as regards the statementing of children. Therefore, there is not enough distance between the parties. It may be that I must have an argument about that with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Committee.
I am sure that the Bill will be welcomed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is a lot to be said for

1401
it both as regards parents' rights and the Citizen's Charter. I should think it will attract the support of the Government. I wish the Bill well and I hope that it will go a long way towards restoring the paramount rights of a statemented young person under the 1981 Act.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for bringing this Private Member's Bill before your Lordships today.
As was stated by many noble Lords in a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on 20th November 1991 on the Education Act 1981, this Act has been implemented well in some parts of the country—and we pay tribute to those authorities which are implementing it well. In other parts of the country it is being implemented not so well and, regretfully, in a few authorities it is not being implemented at all. That point was made by both the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Elton.
It is cause for wonderment that the Department of Education seems to have been unaware—or if aware has taken no action—of areas in which the Bill has not been implemented. This Bill deals with a narrow but important area of anxiety. There are many other areas of anxiety outside the Bill; for example, inadequate and unclear information about the local education authorities' assessment procedures and the range of special educational provisions available; insufficient help in supporting parents during assessment; a lack of weight being given to parents' views during the assessment process; a lack of real choice about provision—and on that I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said because I know that after a recommendation was made that a child should go to a special school, a city treasurer asked whether there was a cheaper recommendation—failure to implement the role of a named person or parent adviser; insufficient use of the resources, in particular counselling skills, of the voluntary sector; and, lastly, a lack of support services such as child guidance services and speech therapists, as has been mentioned previously. However, we must discuss those problems on another occasion.
As has been stated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the Bill aims to improve the statementing process. It aims also to introduce a machinery whereby appeals can be made against local authorities' decisions not to issue statements or no longer to maintain them. Further, it aims to strengthen the appeals procedure. I support the introduction of a six-month limit for the statementing procedure of local authorities. If a child appears before a court, the local authority, in the form of the social services department, must bring a report before the court in much less than six months. Those reports are as serious as the statementing of children. Therefore, I support the six-month limit.
Perhaps we should look at the appeals committee from the point of view of the parents. Parents often
1402
feel that there are too many representatives from the local education authority on the committee and therefore that the appeal committee is in cahoots, so to speak, with the officers. However, I believe that there should be one representative from the local education authority on the committee in order that the education department and its local councillors know what is going on.
I recommend also that there should be a specialist on the appeal committee who should be perhaps a retired paediatrician. That specialist should be appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to serve on the committee. I believe that in that way not only would the Ministry be represented but also there would be on the committee a specialist whose expertise would be valued by the parents.
Secondly, I believe that if such an appointment were made to the appeal committee, it would prevent many cases being referred to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is in the Chamber; I am sure that he would be happy not to have so many referrals on his desk. Also the parents would value that appointment.
I ask the Minister whether the recommendations of the appeal committee are binding. Somehow that point seems not to have been addressed. I wonder whether one should consider whether parents should have a right of appeal within a year of the findings of the appeal committee. In many cases an appeal is heard and the statement fulfilled, but fulfilled only in fact and not in spirit.
Many parents have been to see me about the way in which their children have been dealt with after a statement has been made and the recommendations fulfilled. It seems that parents have no power to alter the situation. For example, I heard of a dyslexic child for whom it was recommended that he should receive special treatment for his dyslexia. He was put into a class of 36 children younger than himself. The teacher had received a course in the teaching of dyslexic children but she could spare him only perhaps 10 minutes or a quarter-of-an-hour every day because she had to deal with the other children. The parents wanted to know how they could appeal against that. The mother worked, the father was out of work but they are now paying for the child to have special treatment out of school hours. That problem has not been addressed and it should be followed up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that the problem of lack of resources is extremely difficult. However, I have dealt with older children coming before the courts. The country spends a great deal of money on children who should have been helped in school but have not been helped. Ultimately they get into trouble, they come before the courts and that costs far more than it would have cost had they received the special treatment which they needed while at school. We should address that point, quite apart from bearing in mind the happiness and emotional satisfaction of the child and its family.
I support the Bill although I believe that further amendments must be made. I believe also that we should have further discussions on other aspects of the Education Act 1981.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to dwell for a moment on the recent past. The year of the Education Act, 1981, was a good year for MENCAP—of which I am now the Chairman—thanks to a great deal of help from some who were then, or are now, Members of your Lordships' House. In the first instance, through the good offices of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, then Home Secretary, Her Majesty the Queen graciously commanded that we became a royal society —the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults—which was a splendid accolade in that International Year of Disabled People.
That same year also saw MENCAP sitting down at the conference table with many other organisations representing people with disabilities. That alone was a major step forward for up to then we had been generally excluded from their deliberations. For this newly found acceptance I must pay a somewhat belated tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who was then President of the International Year of Disabled People in this country and who is such a strong defender of the rights of people with disabilities.
The year 1981 was good for us too in the world of education. In that February the noble Lord, Lord Renton, (then chairman of MENCAP) and I (as the, then, secretary-general) met with the Secretary of State for Education, Mark Carlisle—now the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow—to press upon him a number of important clauses for the forthcoming Education Bill. We were received with great courtesy, listened to most sympathetically and, to our great delight, were largely successful, for the new Act determined that appropriate education and training would be given to children with a mental handicap or learning disability from the moment of diagnosis, following an apparently straightforward statementing procedure to be conducted by the local education authorities. The principles behind the Education Act 1981 remain excellent. It is in the operation of the Act where the problems have arisen, and I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on and thank him for drawing them to your Lordships' notice.
At present, the delay before a family knows whether a child will receive a statement can be as long as a year. There can be no justification for that. Parents who have a child with special educational needs are all too aware of the problems in delaying the educational process. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to highlight this frustrating situation with the experience of a family in the west country.
A statement was requested by this family back in June 1988. Until that time their son, then aged 10, had received only an interim statement following the introduction of the 1981 Act. That was clearly unsuitable for his needs seven years later. Exercising their right under Section 5 of that Act, his parents requested a statement to be made. Later in the same month, the LEA agreed that that should be done. In September 1991—some three years later—the family were still waiting for a final version of a statement for
1404
their son and that was only achieved when they contacted their MP, who supported the case. It is the missed opportunities for the development of that child, and many others in a similar situation, which need to be addressed and which Clause 1 of the amendment Bill does by setting a six-month deadline for local education authorities to decide whether or not a statement of special educational needs ought to be produced.
What happens if the parents are still not satisfied with the LEA's decision? Currently parents are not able to appeal against such a decision. The appeals procedure is undertaken by an appeals panel which, as your Lordships may have heard and as was stressed by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, may contain employees of the LEA. The panel has only the right to confirm or reject a statement completely.
With your Lordships' permission perhaps I can again illustrate a case history. One family took its case to the appeals panel, which found in its favour. However, the LEA chose to ignore that decision stating that the panel was only "advisory". The parents subsequently appealed to the Secretary of State in March 1990 and are still awaiting a decision. I trust that it is not the incumbent Secretary of State in the Chamber who is being called to task in that regard.
As we have already heard, the amendment Bill introduces the right to appeal against an LEA decision not to issue a statement and to appeal if a statement is not maintained. It seems that there may well be further amendments to that procedure. However, to date the appeals panel will now have the power to amend a statement directly and no LEA employee will be able to serve on such a panel. Those changes are greatly to be welcomed and are entirely consistent with the Government's initiatives under the Citizen's Charter to try to give more power to the parents.
The American poet, Ezra Pound, wrote in the ABC of Reading,
"Any general statement is like a cheque drawn on the bank. Its value depends on what is there to meet it".
I trust that your Lordships will ensure that this particular cheque does not bounce; that amendments are made to the timing and efficacy of statements; and that the Education (Amendment) Bill achieves a Second Reading and a successful passage to the statute book.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, rising at the end of this Second Reading debate I too can do little more than echo what many other noble Lords have said. However, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for a timely Bill following on the debate last November initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, which I believe drew attention to many anomalies in the Education Act 1981. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Swinton who has covered many of the points I intended to make. I ticked them off as he made them and it will give me the opportunity to be even more brief at this relatively late hour.

1405
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway gave a marvellous presentation of the Bill. Today he was in his legislative mode and was putting a complicated Bill into terms which even I find almost possible to understand. I have seen him in his litigious mode when he is preparing his cases. That is a different and fighting spirit, when he shows grim determination to overcome the vagaries of the Act. On occasions I have seen him come into the House with a glint of victory when he has been able to win some respite for the people for whom he has enormous care.
We are speaking about the cost in human terms. We speak of six months' delay and imposing a time delay. We have a British disease. When we send something away to be mended we are told we can have it back in two weeks' time. Why? It takes only half-an-hour or possibly an hour to mend. Is it due to lack of resources? In fact, I have noticed that the winds of the recession mean that we receive things back within a shorter time. One can have a shirt cleaned in 24 hours or on the same day. As new technology arises we should take a good look at the time taken for considering the cases of children who have educational problems and whose needs are not being served at the schools they attend.
Like my noble friend Lord Swinton, I have visited special schools. I am due to visit another in the west country the week after next. I have heard some extraordinary stories of delay. The parents of a boy requiring special education could ill afford to send him to a college which had around 80 pupils—35 supported by various local education authorities around the country. They approached one of the local authorities because they felt their child needed a statement and they certainly needed help in paying the school fees, the school being in the private sector. The school provided for the special educational needs of dyslexic and severely dyslexic children which are considerable because of the high staffing requirement. By the time a statement had been made four years later the boy had left the school.
Other anomalies exist with the activities of various local education authorities which should be examined. I hope that the Committee stage of the Bill will give us the opportunity to examine carefully not only the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway but also other amendments which may be tabled. I am not sure that we should go so far as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested in rethinking the provision of a statement. I believe that we were all rather surprised at the entry of a new transitive verb into the English language, "to statement". Now we have got used to it, it is being suggested that it should be abolished. I hope that it will be replaced with something which is more effective for the child.
I am conscious of the resource implications. I am also fairly sure that help given to a child with special educational needs at an early stage need not be for five or 10 years of his educational life. He could benefit greatly from a year or two of highly intensive and very caring attention in a family environment such as is available in a school which I visited a week or two ago.
1406
It returns severely handicapped children in a year or two to the mainstream of education. That is done at some cost, admittedly. But the cost for a child who has not had that provision is likely to mean that he is not going to contribute to society as an adult. It is likely to mean also that he is not going to achieve his potential and that he will be a drain on society and therefore in economic terms a big minus. If help can be given for a year or two at a cost of £8,000 to £10,000 a year, or whatever it is, that child will probably become a taxpayer and contribute to the benefit of society. In human terms, behind the complicated provisions of this Bill, that is something we must take into account.
I know that tomorrow evening on BBC2 there is a programme in the "Public Eye" series, beginning at 8 p.m., which looks into the incidence of dyslexic children among offenders. I do not know what the programme will contain and none of us will know until it is shown. I believe that it will show that it occurs not infrequently. It will be of great benefit if this Act can reduce the number of children who have been frustrated from a very early age, who have found their differences in ability have been misunderstood by the people who care for them and provide their education and who grow up to believe that they can get their own back on society and do it in a way which leads them to offend.
I am not making any proposal, but I have started an inquiry of my own with colleagues of mine in the dyslexia movement, together with His Honour Judge Tumim. We are looking into this matter. I hope that tomorrow night's programme will be of interest. I very strongly support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend further help us by telling us on which channel this programme will appear?
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I believe it will be shown on BBC2 at 8 p.m. tomorrow.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in speaking very briefly in support of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I join with others in congratulating and thanking him for introducing it. I speak from an angle which has not been fully covered by other noble Lords in the debate this afternoon, to whom I have listened with great interest and, for what it is worth, approval.
I should mention that I speak as the father of an 11 year-old child with Down's Syndrome who is extremely fortunate to have been placed in a residential Camphill Community School. What I have to say is therefore based on personal experience and on talking to others in the field.
My particular reason for supporting this Bill is that I believe that it would help those parents of children with varying degrees of mental handicap who find themselves up against what they may regard as over-enthusiasm on the part of their local education authority to place their child in a normal school when they believe that special residential education would

1407
be in their and their child's best interest. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that some of these children can also be very disruptive to normal children in a normal class. I am quite sure that, with the best will in the world, my own daughter would be.
I have also been very interested to hear other noble Lords mention the fact that sometimes perhaps statements are not being made and that there may be an element of what is known as resource implications in that. That is very serious. I believe that there is also an element of what I would call, in its mildest form, ideology which may creep into this problem. I believe that the enthusiasm in some local authorities, which I am afraid is fairly widespread, seems to be related to the current emphasis towards adult care in the community. Like that movement, it is certainly very well-intentioned.
But there are now serious worries about our ability to make adequate provision in the community for all the adults discharged from residential homes. Likewise, there are many experienced providers of special education who fear that too many children with comparatively severe special educational needs are being placed in normal schools when they would be very much happier and better cared for in special residential schools. I believe that the appeal mechanism envisaged by this Bill would do much to help these children and their parents and I therefore support it.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for having introduced his Bill to amend the Education Act 1981 in respect of assessments and appeals. The wide-ranging nature of today's debate has again demonstrated the deeply felt concerns which noble Lords have expressed on a number of occasions in recent months about the working of the 1981 Act. The aims of the Bill clearly have widespread support in this House and outside among the many voluntary bodies which contribute so much to securing improved educational opportunities for children with special educational needs and support for their families.
The 1981 Act is one of the major pieces of educational legislation this century. That gives me a further opportunity to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, how much we owe to the report of the Committee which she chaired. Her contribution today has rightly given us that sense of historical perspective about the importance of keeping the needs of individual children at the forefront of our deliberations. Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government remain firmly committed to the main principles which the Act enshrines: the emphasis on the needs of the individual child; the duty on local education authorities to identify, assess and provide for special educational needs; the right of parents to be involved in that process as partners; the presumption that placements should be made in mainstream schools if at all possible; and the need for current arrangements to be kept under review in order
1408
to ensure that provision remains sensitive and responsive to individual children's needs and parental wishes.
My noble friend Lord Swinton specifically mentioned resources, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and others. At this point I want to stress that we are also very firmly committed to the duties which the Act places on local education authorities to identify, assess and provide for special educational needs. We have increased spending on education by 40 per cent. per pupil since 1980 and the resources are there for authorities to use. However, I am naturally very concerned to look into specific cases of which your Lordships may have evidence. I add that we also remain committed to the application of the national curriculum to all of these children unless there are sound reasons why some exceptional arrangements should be made.
In that connection, perhaps I may make my second mention in only a matter of days of a special school that I have visited on Humberside. I was encouraged to see that the national curriculum was not being disapplied for any of the children in that school because it operates at all levels. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is important to ensure that all children make progress from whatever base they start. The national curriculum is certainly helping in that way.
The Government share, therefore, the concerns which have been expressed about the working of the Act. That also includes those instances that were so graphically illustrated by my noble friend Lord Renwick and by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Earlier this year we issued a guide for parents in the charter series on "Children with Special Needs". It set out parents' rights and responsibilities under the 1981 Act and has been generally welcomed. We have also been considering in what ways we should be addressing the concerns which have been expressed today and how we might improve and extend parents' access to the present arrangements for assessments, statements and appeals.
We have undertaken a fundamental review of the provisions of the 1981 Act which deal with these issues and of the supporting regulations. We have concluded that the Government should bring forward proposals later in the year to improve access to the present arrangements for assessments and statements, to give parents the right to express a preference for their child's school, and to provide for a coherent and comprehensive set of rights of appeal for parents who are not satisfied with the decisions made by local education authorities. We would propose also to make other amendments to the Act to clarify the present provisions. I shall now describe the proposals in brief.
The Government share the widespread concern that assessments and statements should be completed in a reasonable time. My noble friend's Bill would seek to achieve that by requiring local education authorities to complete their assessments and decide whether they should determine the child's special educational provision within six months of notifying a child's parents that they were going to carry out a multi-professional assessment of his or her needs.

1409
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a six-month deadline within primary legislation may well be too rigid. However, I note also the points made by other noble Lords, especially by my noble friend Lord Elton, who pointed out that cases taking more than six months should prove the exception rather than the rule. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, there will be some occasions when authorities are not able to complete the process in this time. Other statutory bodies which have to give advice may not do so in a reasonable period; the child may be ill; or some other circumstance may arise which is outside the authority's control. We would expect these occasions to be rare but they should be recognised. The present Bill would also not deal with the time taken by authorities to decide whether they will assess a child or at a later stage make a final draft statement.
The Government have decided, therefore, that there should be comprehensive provisions for regulating the time and way within which authorities carry through the whole process from initial notification to the LEA that an assessment might be necessary to the issue of a final statement. We propose to amend the 1981 Act accordingly, but we believe that the precise provisions should be set out in regulations rather than primary legislation. That will allow for the flexibility that has been mentioned by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It would also achieve greater flexibility and would allow more readily for amendment in the light of experience.
We should want to consult widely on the content and form of these regulations, particularly in relation to district health authorities and social services. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and other noble Lords, that in some cases six months can be too long a period. The Government recognise that at present the Secretary of State's powers would not enable him to provide for such a shorter assessment process—and nor would they enable him to provide for statements that might set out educational objectives for the child and ways of meeting them in the specification of special educational provisions. We propose, therefore, that the Secretary of State should be enabled to achieve such amendments to the present Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983.
We have also considered whether we should now provide for the parents of children with statements to have a statutory right to express a preference for the school that their children will attend similar to the right that parents already have under the Education Act 1980. We have concluded that it would now be right to allow parents to express their preference for a particular special or ordinary school from within the maintained sector. The authority's decision on placement would need to take account of the assessment of the child's needs; consultations with those schools which would or might be able to make the special educational provision; the needs of other pupils and the wise use of resources.
Although the 1981 Act aimed to secure the full involvement of parents as partners in the assessment
1410
process and in the making of statements, it also recognised that there would be some cases where parents and authorities could not resolve their differences. Special provision was made for appeals to the Secretary of State when an authority decided that it was not required to determine provision, following an assessment, and when parents, having appealed to a local appeal committee, remained dissatisfied with the special educational provision set out in the statement. As my noble friend Lord Campbell has explained, his Bill would make far-reaching changes in these provisions.
The Government have every sympathy with my noble friend's proposals and have been considering whether changes are needed to the present arrangements. The area, as noble Lords will recognise, is a complex one. I can say, however, that we are paying close attention to three issues. The first is how parents who are dissatisfied can secure much quicker redress than the present arrangements allow. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. The second point is to consider how, consistently with the Parent's Charter, an appeal system can be made more independent. Again, my noble friend Lady Faithfull raised that issue. The third issue is whether there should be a single appeal body that would allow an oral hearing to replace the present two-stage process with all the delays that that process imports—a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The Government propose shortly to consult about firm proposals that have been devised against the criterion of the coherent and comprehensive rights of appeal for parents to which I have already referred. I shall acquaint the House with those at the earliest opportunity.
Noble Lords will wish to reflect on what I have said, but I should underline that this amounts to a wide ranging agenda for amending the 1981 Act. I trust that the Government's proposals will be seen as evidence of our commitment to children with special educational needs and their parents. The assessment of these children and the provision for their needs are a fundamental part of our policies for ensuring that the educational needs of all of our children are met appropriately and for securing the full and constructive involvement of parents in that process.
In this debate we have concentrated on the rights and responsibilities of local education authorities, parents and their children. I should not wish the role of schools, their governing bodies and staff to be overlooked. Relatively few children with special educational needs have statements. All those without statements—and many with them—are in ordinary schools and their governing bodies and staff have the responsibility of ensuring that the special educational provision that they may require is made.
I should now like to deal with some of the points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was concerned about time limits on the Secretary of State. Perhaps I may advise her that the Secretary of State has no power to make the parents or the LEAs respond within specified times. We are very sympathetic to the points that the noble Baroness

1411
has made. If the Secretary of State's role is retained, we would consider whether the Secretary of State should be able to make regulations in respect of dealing with that particular issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also referred to the publication of the Audit Commission HMI report. Perhaps I may advise her that we intend to publish it and we hope that that will be done in early July.
I should like to pay tribute to the energetic work and efforts and the great experience of my noble friend Lord Elton who led the inquiry into discipline in schools. That work has proved valuable since the report was published in 1989. Indeed, the report continues to be of great importance and relevance not only in connection with this debate, but in relation also to bullying, truancy and the other things that we are discussing in the department.
There has been a slight increase in the percentage of statements, but the figure still stands at exactly 2 per cent. Although the number of special schools continues to decrease steadily and the total number of pupils in special schools has decreased, the number of special-school teachers has nevertheless remained roughly constant over the period. That is leading to a significant improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. To quote my Humberside experience yet again, I witnessed a one-to-one pupil-teacher ratio there because that was the requirement for the children in that school. The latest information is that that is required by 2 per cent. of children.
Some disturbing points have been made about children with learning difficulties. I ask noble Lords who have examples of cases to bring them to my notice. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to an LEA which had decided to make no more statements in a particular year. We would regard that as serious and I should like to hear if that LEA can be named. I was also asked about the average time for assessments. The average time is about a year, which is much too long. I have not heard of four years but I certainly have heard of two years. To those of us working in the department, these are unacceptable time delays, and whatever we do that issue must be addressed during the course of the review.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked what had happened to the recommendation in his report which required that LEAs should maintain an establishment of educational psychologists to achieve the six months' target. That is a matter for LEAs but it is a matter about which no doubt the Audit Commission will have something to say. We shall be interested in looking at how the Act is working with local authorities. Authorities must secure provision for all the special educational needs of their pupils, including those of a behavioural nature. I can promise that I shall look into any specific case where there is alleged abuse of the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was concerned about LEAs' policy statements relating to extending their LMS schemes to special schools. They are in fact helping us to consider whether we can develop national guidelines on criteria for SEN provision. The noble Baroness also raised the
1412
important point of inspection. Inspections will be controlled and carried out to national standards set and monitored by a new independent office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to give confidence in reports. The chief inspector will consult governors on the specification for their school. An appropriate inspector will then be selected from at least two registered inspectors to lead a team into the school. All team members must have received appropriate training. Performance in the conduct and reporting of inspections will be monitored to ensure consistency. Inspections must follow detailed guidelines which will be drawn up by the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. We expect that the guidelines will set out how inspectors shall assess and report on the provision being made for children with special needs in ordinary schools. In the case of special schools, the chief inspector can be expected to offer more particular guidance on the nature of the team required and the detailed issues to be covered.
The noble Baroness asked about non-statemented special needs children. All schools, including special schools, will be subject for the first time ever to statutory regular inspection. We have made it clear that inspectors should report on all the school's provision, including special educational needs, for children in mainstream, both statemented and non-statemented. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was concerned about excluded children. I found some of her comments quite disturbing. She gave us warning of this problem and we are already looking into that within the department.
Concern was expressed about provision for post-16 education. There is a binding condition on governors of schools, where funds for pupils with statements have been delegated to them, to meet all the requirements of the statements. Very few authorities actually delegate the funds for pupil statements. The Further and Higher Education Act gives young people over 16 with learning difficulties a statutory right to have their special needs taken into account by the Further Education Funding Council and, where appropriate, by the LEA.
I have been asked how well integration is working. All I can say is that we have a vigorous programme of visiting schools, from the Secretary of State through the whole ministerial team. We are discovering many examples of good practice but we must of course continue to monitor; and that we shall do. It is simply not true to say that special educational needs provision cannot be met in sixth-form colleges in the wake of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. It is a matter for newly independent colleges from April 1993, but we are confident that the colleges will continue the existing good practice.
With regard to movement into further education, we expect the Further Education Funding Council to take into account the provisions specified in a pupil's statement when making placements after the age of 16. Local management budgets will be flexible enough to allow LEAs to delegate extra funds to schools or SEN pupils with or without statements. We are finding that some LEAs have imaginative and effective systems. We shall do what we can to spread best practice.

1413
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for introducing his Bill on assessments and appeals. We are indebted to him and to the many noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I hope that my noble friend will consider the further progress of his Bill in the light of what I have had to say. I have not been able to deal with all the detailed points raised by noble Lords but I shall consider them most carefully with my right honourable and honourable friends in another place as we complete our work on the further proposals we shall be bringing forward later in the year on the future structure of the education service.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, within the traditionally very short time allowed for this speech, I cannot find words adequately to thank noble Lords for their general support. I undertake to put the Bill in proper form via an amendment before the Committee stage. Now that it has been brought to my attention, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for enabling me to move the Second Reading by what must have been a resort of timely subterfuge not unknown to any of us who practise at the Bar. I should also like to thank the learned judge who released me from his court.
The majority of those who spoke in the debate appeared to support Clause 2 as it stands. It was properly understood by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and I apologise for my intervention. Obviously, further consideration must be given to this matter in Committee. On the point of six months, in the interests of flexibility I am open to any form of amendment which commends itself to your Lordships' House. I could not draft one which would be effective. The term "reasonable circumstances" is so open to abuse that there seems to be no object in putting it in that way.
Many noble Lords felt that the Bill does not go far enough. I agree with them; but I felt that I could not get away with anything that went much further. For my part, I shall welcome proposals radical as they may be, as envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Faithfull; even if they to some extent enlarge the scope of the Bill. We have to deal with the uneven application of the Act throughout the country, a point to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford rightly referred. We have to deal with worries about the application of the Act; the absence of clear levels and standards (a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone); the policy not to make statements; statements on what is available and not on what is needed; safeguards for the local authority and not for the child, a point so eloquently put in one sentence by my noble friend Lord Swinton. How true in practice that sentence is. We also have to deal with the problems of post-school education after the age of 16; resources, and so on.
My noble friend Lord Elton with his expertise and knowledge on the subject is an authority on the
1414
matter. He set out a true perspective; indeed, until he spoke, I did not see it quite in that light. Your Lordships may think that we may have to reconsider the statement. That will not necessarily extend the scope of the Bill, because in that lies the crucial problem of the interests of the child, what is needed for the child, the resources for the child and so on. It is pretty useless in improving an appellate structure from something which is, so to speak, a rotten apple. I know that that overstates the matter, but I use the phrase graphically. However, that it is at the core of the problem.
Finally, I should specially like to thank my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. John Patten, who, I understand, took the trouble to visit the Chamber to listen to the debate. That is a rather rare occurrence in this place. In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend, Lady Blatch, who, frankly, has cast a breath of fresh air on the subject. She has a positive, sympathetic and constructive approach which I am sure is greatly appreciated by your Lordships. I know that noble Lords would wish me to express that word of gratitude.
If the Government were to table an amendment along the original Cavendish proposals and do away with the two-tier structure and the appeal committee, and then establish a proper tribunal which is subject to law, no one would be happier than myself. My great hope is that, if the Government do not feel like doing it, one of your Lordships will do so. Of course, I cannot do it to my own Bill. I can only hope that some noble Lords may be inspired to do so and that the majority view would be that such an amendment against the Bill would be passed. With respect, if I may say so, we are all in this together. I thank noble Lords for the help that I have received thus far. I know that I cannot do without it in the future.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1991
6.53 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the order to allow for consultation between parents, governors and teachers covering the teaching programmes on AIDS/HIV for 11 to 14 year-old children; and to provide a conscience clause to allow teachers not to teach this subject to children of this age, and to allow parents to withdraw their children from particular lessons.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her helpful and constructive winding-up speech on the previous debate. I take no responsibility for keeping her here for yet another debate; indeed, I hope that she will be just as constructive and helpful when concluding this debate. I also hope that I shall be able

1415
to clear up some of the misunderstandings that appear to have arisen since the original Motion was published last March.
I believe that the rushed decision by the Government last Autumn to make education about the HIV virus and AIDS compulsory within the science part of the national curriculum has led to confusion and concern among governors, teachers and parents. The Government have overridden provisions on sex education and now appear to be pretending that nothing has really changed. I believe that they have fudged the issue. I hope that this evening the Minister will bring some clarity and sense back into the department's thinking and agree to look again at the matter.
In moving this Motion it is not my intention to open up a full-scale debate on the importance of teaching young people about HIV and AIDS; nor about the significance for our society of this serious illness which has sadly affected so many people and which in other parts of the world has reached epidemic proportions. I say that because I am totally committed to the cause of helping those with AIDS and providing information about the virus and the illness to those who need to have it. I am not burying my head in the sand and hoping that the virus will disappear. I want a realistic and honest approach to the issue in our society and in particular in schools.
If any noble Lord doubts my commitment, I would ask him to reflect on the following fact. So far as I am aware, only one piece of legislation specifically concerned with HIV and AIDS has passed through this House. I refer to the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. It started life as a Private Member's Bill in another place and I had the privilege of steering it through your Lordships' House and onto the statute book. The Act was concerned with ensuring that we were all aware of the extent and the potential of the problem. The statistics that we now regularly see about the number of AIDS cases are published because of that legislation. They help us to provide and target assistance, resources and facilities where they are most needed. Therefore, I hope that we shall not become too bogged down in a debate about the importance and potential of AIDS. I for one accept its significance. I also accept, having listened to all the debates on the issue, that Members of your Lordships' House share my concern.
However, before considering the implications of the Government's decision to make AIDS education compulsory in the science curriculum I need to sketch in some of the background about existing arrangements. I am sure that most noble Lords agree that sex education is an important but sensitive area. In recent years it has perhaps assumed more importance because our society has become more open about sexual matters and the media are constantly communicating information and impressions about sexual relationships.
I believe that existing arrangements on sex education have much to commend them. Under the Education (No.2) Act 1986 governors were given primary responsibility for deciding the sex education policy for their schools. Statutory powers were given
1416
to governors under the Act. That put the sex education issue on the agenda of schools in a way that it had never been before. Governors were required by statute to consult parents about their policy. In most cases that has proved to be a helpful and healthy exercise in local democracy and in parental involvement.
I am a school governor of an inner-London school where we have all the problems. We are well aware of all the pressures on teachers, parents and pupils. In fact I heard someone say just the other week that in our area the Rottweilers walk in pairs. But, having said that, I have been involved in the process of consultation and discussion. I appreciate the value of those discussions and of their outcome. In our case the outcome has been a fully acceptable sex education programme which is proceeding very well and constructively and which is welcomed by parents and teachers alike.
But there are two other important points about the existing situation on sex education which flow from the 1986 Act and the guidelines that were issued under it. First, the legislation set out a broad control on the content of any sex education. That has been a great reassurance and an encouragement to many parents. Section 46 of the Act requires that governors must ensure that sex education,
"is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
That short statement says what I hope we all know; namely, that sex education cannot and should not be divorced from morality or from family life.
Secondly, parents were granted the statutory right to appeal to governors to withdraw their children in specific cases where they did not like the sex education lessons. Governors have discretion as regards how they respond to such requests. But so far as I am aware—and certainly in my own particular case—that right has not been exercised. Moreover, I understand that it is rarely exercised throughout the country. But it is a useful and important provision which reassures parents that if they feel that something inappropriate is being taught they have some outlet for their anxiety.
It is six years since the 1986 Act was passed and schools have worked hard to establish procedures under that Act. There have been many thousands of meetings throughout the country about sex education policies. But this position was disturbed by the Government's decision, with very little consultation, to make AIDS education compulsory in the science curriculum through the blunt instrument of secondary legislation.
When I say very little consultation, I understand —and I have checked as far as I can—that it was not even in the original draft. No mention was made of the matter in the original draft. It was inserted some time later, about November. That was more than midway through the consultative process. The proposal (five little words) is contained in the order which we are now discussing. It was hardly noticed. In fact it appeared in the middle of a huge 40-page document and went unnoticed by lots of people.
We must be grateful to those people who spotted it. I know that a group of individuals belonging to the

1417
Plymouth Brethren inserted advertisements in national papers. That alerted myself and many others to the fact that we should look at this matter. Subsequently letters began to appear in the press and leading articles in the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers which brought the whole thing to light. I could quote them but I shall not because of the time factor. But we are grateful to those people who brought the matter to our attention in that way.
My whole argument rests on the premise that AIDS education involves sex education. Of course, I fully recognise that the AIDS virus can be transmitted without sexual contact. Sadly, many people first come in contact with the HIV virus through sharing needles in the course of drug addiction. Others have received it, sadly, through blood transfusions. But in the main we are talking about a sexually transmitted disease. If sexual behaviour changes, the risk of contracting the virus is greatly reduced.
There was a report from a very famous hospital not very long ago which stated:
"The only tool to control the AIDS virus is behaviour change".
That came from a hospital group which is very much involved with the virus. The World Health Organisation has warned:
"the most effective way to prevent transmission of the virus … is to abstain from sexual intercourse or for uninfected partners to remain faithful to one another".
I do not see anything wrong with those two propositions. I hope that most noble Lords involved in this debate would agree.
I fail to see however how education about AIDS can avoid the moral and social issues concerned with sexual behaviour. In fact I think that it is impossible. Furthermore, I cannot see how one can open up the issue in a factual way in the course of a science lesson and leave it there. In my view AIDS education involves talking about relationships—something which does not usually fit neatly into the science laboratory.
So what are the implications of the Government's decision? In my view the problem lies with the compulsory nature of the science curriculum and the lack of consultation required about the detailed approaches used. There have been numerous statements by the Department of Education since this order was originally laid and since it came under pressure from correspondence, the national press and so on. But none of them has fully clarified the position. To my knowledge no Minister has said that the provisions of the 1986 Act, which includes the statutory provisions for governors and parents to be involved, will apply to AIDS education in the science curriculum. They will not. Again, I could enlarge on and analyse the Government's reply in detail if necessary. I can assure your Lordships that it is a fact that they have not said that those statutory provisions in the 1986 Act will apply to AIDS education in the science curriculum.
From that I conclude that the role of governors in relation to the policies for sex education will not include what is taught under the science curriculum. Of course governors have a general responsibility—
1418
and I know that too—for the curriculum in schools, but the 1986 Act, I repeat, gave them specific statutory responsibilities to consult on the content and approach used in sex education. They have no such responsibility for science in the compulsory part of the national curriculum.
Furthermore, parents will have no statutory right to be consulted about how the issue is handled in the context of science. Ministers have stressed that they expect the matter to be dealt with informally at a local level. But it cannot be. In a sensitive area such as this, statutory rights are important and parents' feelings have been overridden. I hope that people will square their conscience on the Parent's Charter with this kind of development.
Teachers are placed in a different position with regard to the science curriculum compared with sex education elsewhere in the curriculum. In spite of the development of cross-curricular teaching in schools, it is still primarily science teachers who teach science. They will be expected to handle this aspect of the curriculum like any other. Sex education, on the other hand, is a subject which teachers usually volunteer to take or they negotiate with the head teacher. That is why I have stressed in my Motion the need for the feelings of teachers to be taken into account. I am almost bound to say that there is a case to be made for a specialised group composed of teachers specially trained in the important and vital subject of sex education, HIV and so on, teachers specially trained, prepared, willing and able to carry out this task. There is an argument for such a force to be properly trained and properly funded.
There is one other matter to which I must refer before I sit down. The fears of parents and governors on this issue have been heightened by a booklet produced by the department last November entitled HIV and AIDS: A guide for the Education Service. Ministers have been at pains to say that this booklet contains little that is new; that nothing has really changed and that those who complain about it are misinformed. I have read the booklet umpteen times now and I accept that there is much useful information contained in it. I do not condemn the whole thing willy-nilly—there is some good information in the booklet. I also accept that teachers are unlikely to photocopy the pages referring to what can only be called deviant sexual acts and distribute them to their pupils. I do not think that will happen. But I note that the booklet itself states that in fulfilling the provisions of the national curriculum science order:
"The basis of any teaching offered should be the presentation of straightforward, factual information about the virus and about modes of transmission of infection—along the lines of the information provided in the early part of this booklet".
The information provided in the early part of the booklet is mainly in paragraph 19. There are others, but paragraph 19 contains this most straightforward part. It states:
"Because HIV may be present in the semen of a man who is infected with the virus, if he has any form of sexual intercourse with an uninfected person he puts that person at risk unless the semen is prevented from entering his or her body. Individuals are particularly at risk if they have anal intercourse. Heterosexual intercourse may also transmit the

1419
virus from a man to a woman, and from a woman to a man. To help protect against these risks a condom (or sheath) should be used".
It goes on to explain quite specifically—I cannot even quote it in its context—how to use the thing. The paragraph concludes:
"a single unprotected sexual contact can result in infection with HIV. Oral sex also carries some risks particularly if semen is taken into the mouth".
These are the specifics that it is said have to be taught in a straightforward factual way. So the department is trying to have it both ways; and it cannot have it both ways. The early parts of the booklet make that quite clear.
I must therefore question the appropriateness of talking about such things with 11 to 14 year-olds in the context of a school science lesson. This is particularly so when the booklet makes no reference whatever—and this is what I find most offensive—to the moral framework laid down in the 1986 Act. There are other aspects of safe sex not mentioned in the booklet that we all know of and to which we ascribe, certainly those in the Christian community. Abstention from pre-marital sex and fidelity within marriage are not mentioned in the booklet. That and the precautions mentioned by the hospital and the WHO are the only sure ways of preventing the spread.
That is why I believe that the Government have fudged the issue. They are happy to repeat—no doubt the Minister will repeat it again this evening—the provisions of the 1986 Act: consultation with parents, controls on content and the responsibilities of governors. But those arrangements do not apply to the science curriculum. That is where the misunderstanding arises—not with me but with the people who are trying to put over the idea that those arrangements exist. They do not. They exist under the 1986 Act and the statutes that I have mentioned, but they do not exist under the science curriculum.
It appears that the Government have given in to pressure to make AIDS education compulsory. They have used the science curriculum as a convenient way of achieving that. They poked it in at the end of the consultation period with the hope that it would not be noticed and would be accepted without anyone knowing what was going on.
As I said earlier Ministers are facing two ways on this issue. They try to claim that the provisions of the 1986 Act are included while at the same time pushing through the order without those provisions. I have also heard Ministers say that they could not allow a conscience provision or withdrawal from lessons in part of the national curriculum without granting it in other parts. There is a simple answer to that. They should not have included AIDS education in the core science curriculum in the first place if they wished to avoid the difficulty. They should have recognised that other places in the curriculum such as sex education and personal and social education would have been more appropriate.
Finally if the Government are worried that the provisions under the 1986 Act are not working to their satisfaction or would cause difficulties in relation to AIDS education, they should have said so openly and invited consultation with parents, governors and
1420
teachers to sort out new arrangements. They should not have allowed a minor piece of secondary legislation, which slipped through almost unnoticed, to leapfrog an Act of Parliament designed to ensure the rights of parents, governors and teachers. I urge the Minister to reconsider and to sort out the mess which the department has left her to handle. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the order to allow for consultation between parents, governors and teachers covering the teaching programmes on AIDS/HIV for 11 to 14 year-old children; and to provide a conscience clause to allow teachers not to teach this subject to children of this age, and to allow parents to withdraw their children from particular lessons.—(Lord Stallard.)
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on bringing this matter before your Lordships' House and presenting the issue so well—so well that I have little to add except my support. In summarising the reasons for my support, I shall highlight what appear to me to be three major contradictions.
First, there appears to me to be the contradiction between the provisions of the order and the principles enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Education Act 1944, which all affirm the right of parents to have their children educated in ways consistent with their religious, philosophical or ethical convictions, and/or to choose the kind of education that should be given to their children.
It was within that context that, in 1986, the importance of parental involvement in decisions relating to schools' policy on sex education was recognised in law with the requirement that governors should have overall control over that important aspect of the curriculum, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has just emphasised. But the new order denies them any involvement with one of the most complex and sensitive aspects of sex education—teaching about AIDS. They do so in a way which places that teaching in a part of the national curriculum which is compulsory.
The second apparent contradiction—it seems apparent to me and I should be grateful if my noble friend would reassure me—is that between the Government's avowed commitment to respect and to enhance parental rights and wishes and the provisions of the order which deny those rights and wishes with regard, as I have already said, to one of the most sensitive issues of our time. The provisions also impose a heavy burden of responsibility upon teachers with no right of withdrawal from that responsibility.
The third contradiction is that between the principles enshrined in the Education Act 1986 that sex education should be taught in a way which respects moral values and family life, and the guidance

1421
given in the DES booklet on HIV and AIDS which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has said, refrains explicitly from any discussion of moral values.
That third contradiction is thrown into sharp relief in the light of the welcome statements made recently by my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State for Education when he affirmed his conviction that education should be based upon moral and spiritual values. The proposals for teaching about AIDS as part of the science curriculum seem strangely inconsistent with that commitment. That does not necessarily mean that teaching science is always value-free; but it suggests that the full complexity of ethical and moral issues is unlikely to be adequately addressed as satisfactorily as if dealt with under sex education. Therefore, the provisions of the Education Act 1986 with regard to sex education are unlikely to be met.
I should therefore like to ask my noble friend to tell me who put the proposed teaching about AIDS and HIV into the science curriculum, and what was the thinking behind it? I find it hard to understand. I have become especially interested in the answer to those questions after carefully reading the teachers' guide produced by the DES. That significant source book is, as I have already mentioned, notable for the absence of any moral content. It is completely amoral and, as such, may be seen as promoting or condoning behaviour which many people would regard as immoral. Also in its concentration on the mechanics of so-called safe sex, that DES booklet focuses exclusively on technicalities and omits any consideration of the ethical aspects of human relationships or the values of family life. That is a matter that causes anxiety which has been brought to my attention not just by members of the Christian community but by people from other religious communities, and none, who respect family values.
In detailed discussions on the transmission of the AIDS virus, it is impossible to avoid the discussion of sexual practices in details which may be inappropriate for children as young as 11. Indeed, such explicit discussion may cause fear about sexual practices of any kind; or, conversely, it may prompt exploratory behaviour which could be morally and/or physically damaging.
Before concluding, I should say that, as a nurse, I am of course in favour of appropriate teaching about AIDS and its prevention; but that must be done in ways which respect the moral, religious and ethical values of parents. In conclusion, perhaps I may emphasise my belief that one of the main purposes and achievements of the provisions of the Education Act 1986 with regard to education about sexual matters was to place it within a context in which parents' rights would be protected and their sensitivities respected. Now, one of the most delicate and complex issues of our times is placed out of reach of that protection and becomes part of a compulsory subject over which parents and governors have no direct control or right of withdrawal of children, and teachers no right of refusal to teach.
1422
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to the amendments or suggest other solutions to the problems that they seek to address, because I believe the problems reflect legitimate, profound anxieties which merit serious consideration.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in speaking in a debate in which much has been said about parents' rights, I fear that I may be treading on thin ice, because I am not a parent. My approach to the problem is that children have the right to know about this killer disease. There is a great deal of sexual activity before the age of 16. That means that those young people are exposed to the disease and therefore they have a right to know the risks that they are taking.
Much has been said about moral and family values. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, pointed out that the only way to be sure of not contracting the disease sexually was to abstain from sex. He did not point out that in playing rugby football, as I do, I risk the chance of contracting it from a clash of heads with blood running from both people. AIDS is not contracted as a result of sexual activity only. Indeed the British Board of Boxing Control has made every boxer take an AIDS test. Any contact sport carries a risk of contracting AIDS. There is a risk of contracting AIDS if body fluids are exchanged. Children must be taught that AIDS does not occur purely as a result of sexual activity. We must cover all the areas where this disease is likely to be contracted. Sex education must cover all those areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has pointed out, it may be felt that sex education can be put across in a rather heavy handed way. I cannot judge that matter properly as I do not find that prospect offensive. Nevertheless, sex education and information about AIDS must be provided. Parents have told me time and time again that they often find it difficult to talk to their children about sexual matters such as reproduction. They are glad when teachers provide the correct information on sexual matters.
In providing this information we are not criticising anyone's moral values. Surely moral values will be enhanced if we point out that by breaking certain moral codes people run a risk of killing themselves. That factor should be borne in mind. There is also the matter of withdrawing pupils from particular lessons. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord thought this course of action should be readily available but someone may set a precedent. For example people with certain political views may not wish pupils to be taught about certain historical matters. Racism or anti-semitism could find a way into schools if such a precedent were followed. A person who believes the earth is flat may decide that his child should not study physics.
No matter what the noble Lord's moral convictions may be, I suggest that this Motion is inappropriate. Young people have rights. They have a right to know about the dangers of contracting AIDS. If we deny

1423
them information about AIDS we are denying them the right to be informed about the dangers of contracting it.
7.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this Motion to us and indeed for the way he introduced it, as he spoke clearly and dispassionately. This is a subject on which emotions inevitably run high because it is such a sensitive issue. I agree with much of what the noble Lord said, although at the end of the day I do not think I can go along with him in the proposed solution to the problem.
It is undoubtedly clear that we look to the Government for certain clarification on this matter, if no more, as there seems to be some uncertainty as regards the relationship between sex education policy and what is required in the national curriculum. Surely young people need at all stages to have access to information about their own physical, mental and emotional development. Such information is an aid towards young people understanding and being in control of their own emerging personalities. They need to be given facts appropriate to their age and they need to be given those facts in a context which enables them to work out and apply spiritual and moral values.
Inevitably and rightly much of both information and values is picked up consciously or unconsciously at home as young people observe and experience parents and family. However, that is not enough. Young people pick up information and values whether we like it or not and often they pick up misinformation and twisted values from their peers, the media, graffiti and from magazines left lying around. Children can benefit enormously from a detached and cool atmosphere in a classroom, where distorted information and values can be brought into the open and can he looked at and where reliable facts can be put at their disposal.
It is surely right that the governors of a school should have responsibility for the school's sex education policy. By that process parents are consulted and in that way become party to what their children are taught in the classroom. As I understand it, sex education is a cross-curricular matter. That is one of the difficulties we face because sex education appears in various parts of the national curriculum.
There is also the issue of whether children should be taught about HIV and AIDS at the lower or higher end of the 11 to 14 age range. I feel that by the end of that age range they need to receive the basic facts. However, I understand—I should be grateful for confirmation of this—that it is part of the sex education policy that the governors can determine at what age in that age range children should receive that information.
I am certainly encouraged to learn that 84 per cent. of secondary schools now have a sex education policy. I hope the remainder will move in that direction. I would guess that there are three areas where many, if not all, of us would like to see improvement. First, we
1424
would like an improvement in the context in which facts about human growth and development, human reproduction, HIV and AIDS are taught, as that is crucial. Education about sex is part of education about healthy living. Young people need to learn these facts in a setting which affirms human dignity and destiny and which affirms the rich potential of human creativity in all its aspects, practical and artistic as well as physical. The setting needs to affirm the importance of the morality of human actions and to affirm and note the consequences of individual choices for society as a whole.
Young people have to learn responsibility for their own decisions and actions. The evidence appears to show that having the facts about their bodies does not of itself induce earlier exploration or experience. However, the context in which the facts are given and handled may in the longer term make all the difference. Here, as elsewhere, I do not believe there are such things as cold facts. There are facts warmed by the context in which they are set.
Secondly, young people need to be engaged at the point they have reached in their pilgrimage of self understanding. They need information which is related to the decisions they face and to the puzzles they experience. Therefore they need facts given to them in a setting where they have the space and freedom to inquire and to bring out their own anxieties and uncertainties. In the area of HIV and AIDS we need to recognise there is a great deal which has to be unlearnt as well as a great deal which has to be learnt.
In large measure young people themselves ought in an ideal world to set the pace of sexual education. A wise sex education policy might well include provision for informing parents about when sensitive information is being given to children so that parents are prepared for the follow-up questions which will no doubt arise at home. I suggest that many parents will value help and advice in how to handle those questions from their own children.
Parents may also need assurance that what is being taught at school will not outrage or upset their own proper parental authority. Young people—and, I dare to suggest, those of us who are much older—need to learn and to relearn that sexual activity is part but only part of the art of building lasting, fulfilling human relationships.
That leads me to my third point, which concerns the crucial importance of the teacher. It is one thing to have a sex education policy but it is another thing to deliver it. It is no surprise, but it is a significant fact, that 68 per cent. of LEAs identified teachers' feelings of embarrassment as one of the most obvious obstacles to a sound sex education. Only a minority of teachers have been given special training for that task. Much more needs to be done. If we are to give teachers, as I believe we must, that profound and crucial responsibility, if we are to entrust to them responsibility for giving young people essential information about sexuality, healthy living, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV and AIDS, we owe it to those teachers to provide them with the training and support that they need.

1425
As we all recognise, this is a very delicate and difficult area, but we recognise that children must be given the information that they need. What we are uncertain about and what we seek further clarification about is the precise context and way in which that is to be done.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, with the leave of the House I have kindly been allowed to bump myself up 10 places on the list of speakers. I am very grateful to the House and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for allowing me to do so. I have a long-standing commitment this evening which I fear may mean that I am unable to stay until the end of the debate, for which I apologise. That was the reason for the change, not my geographical proximity to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, which might have been confusing.
I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for giving us the opportunity to review progress to date on this very sensitive area of national curriculum teaching and the opportunity to re-emphasise how very important it is that information on AIDS and HIV is conveyed sensibly, sensitively and effectively in our schools.
Perhaps I should say briefly why I am speaking this evening. I am the father of three very small children—the eldest is only six. I shall do all that is within my power to ensure that they are adequately and appropriately prepared for their lives, both as teenagers and as adults. I also have a particular interest in the subject of health education. On the thankfully rare occasions on which I bore your Lordships with a speech it is usually on that subject. Thirdly, I happen to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I feel that I am at least reasonably well informed about the nature and scale of the challenge which HIV and AIDS present to us all, not simply as inhabitants of the United Kingdom but even as members of the human race.
From what I have said so far it is probably clear that I am strongly in favour of knowledge as the best possible defence against this debilitating, infamous and, it would appear, largely terminal virus. Because of the notoriety of the virus, because it is in large part sexually transmitted, and because in some parts of the world it strikes particularly strongly in the male homosexual community, it is only to be expected that there should be concern about giving information about the virus in a way which minimises its spread while also minimising any distress and embarrassment caused by discussion of some of its means of transmission.
Distress and embarrassment seem to be focused in three main areas of concern: first, that some people take the view that educating children about the means of transmission will encourage them to experiment for themselves with both novel sexual positions and even new sexual orientations; secondly, that AIDS and HIV are statistically insignificant within the population as a whole and that a virus which strikes largely at the urban male homosexual community should be
1426
tackled at source and discussion of it not inflicted upon the rest of us; thirdly, that discussion of the virus should not be forced upon those religious and ethnic communities which find the whole issue morally repugnant and spiritually offensive.
I have great sympathy with that last concern and would urge the Department of Education, governors, teachers and parents to follow the example of certain schools in the London area which are successfully teaching about HIV and AIDS within the science part of the curriculum in areas where there are very high proportions of, for example, Moslem children, with the full support of their parents and local religious leaders. It can be done and it is being done.
Consultation between parents, governors and teachers is desirable, essential and, indeed, is already provided for in drawing up a school's sex education policy. I welcome and strongly encourage such consultation provided that it takes place within the context of deciding how such subjects can best be taught and not whether they should be taught at all. The core curriculum is just that: it is a form of educational spinal cord. By all means decide which form of posture is most appropriate for a school's particular circumstances and by all means emphasise the moral context, but if consultation means the right to decide to remove vertebrae then I am strongly against it. I hope that the Minister will be able to be crystal clear in her reply in stating whether the Government feel that a school should have the right to opt out of any part of the core curriculum.
I return briefly to the other areas of concern which I mentioned—that education about HIV transmission might encourage copycat behaviour and irresponsibility, and that AIDS and HIV is a problem affecting only a small minority of the population and poses little danger to the population at large. I should like to discuss those in the context of the second and third parts of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard—those allowing teachers to opt out and allowing parents to remove their children from particular lessons.
Two large and authoritative studies—the Rockefeller Foundation Report of 1984 and the Jones Report on teenage pregnancy of 1985—indicated clearly that sex education inculcates greater and not lesser responsibility in sexual behaviour. It is sometimes said that attack can be the best means of defence. In these circumstances I feel most strongly that it is knowledge which is the best form of both attack and defence. I would call as a witness a schoolchild participant in one of the HIV/AIDS events held by the National AIDS Trust during 1990 and 1991, supported and financed by the Health Education Authority. The child said:
"Sex education has to talk about reality. You can't censor life, you can only censor education. We are going to find out anyway, so isn't it much better to know the facts than the myths?".
Is HIV/AIDS a minority problem? Should one only target information narrowly at those user groups most statistically affected? In the UK the groups most affected are expanding enormously. By 1991, 24 per cent. of HIV infection was the result of heterosexual activity and the proportion is rising every year. The

1427
proportion of under 25 year-olds who are HIV positive is also rising fast. The majority of those individuals will have acquired the virus since it started receiving publicity and since it became the subject of government campaigns. The message has not got through to them. We owe it to their younger brothers and sisters and to the generations behind them to arm them with the necessary information that AIDS and HIV have the potential to harm each and every one of them.
I have some sympathy for the discomfort which many teachers and parents feel when confronted with the subject. However, I am entirely unconvinced that a statutory right for either party to opt out themselves or their children is a step forward. Certainly, no teacher should be forced to teach the subject against his or her will and no parents should be forced to have their children attend sex education classes if it deeply offends their religious beliefs. But in both cases I believe that these are matters which should be resolved between the governors, teachers and parents of the school concerned. What is critical and, in my view, indisputable is that the result of this process of resolution should be in the interests of the child, not of the parents, governors or teachers. It should be in the interests of the child.
The other day I heard a sad story. It has a particular poignancy because I expect we can all remember circumstances in our own childhood when we wholly misunderstood something and went through agonies of indecision and worry as a result. An eight year-old boy arrived back from school in a distraught state. He sobbed to his mother that because he had not paid a great deal of attention to his classes that afternoon, his teacher had accused him of being ignorant, and that must mean that he had contracted the HIV virus and would ultimately die. Disentangling the thread of his thoughts from his sobs his mother realised that the culprit was the major government sponsored campaign entitled "AIDS—Don't die of ignorance".
Knowledge is the key. Knowledge is the best deterrent, the best contraceptive and the best anti-viral remedy that we possess. Let us disseminate that knowledge wisely, sensitively, always accurately and in full. I feel most strongly that my children have the right to expect that of their school and of this country.
I sympathise with the genuine concern that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. A clear response from the Minister will be greatly appreciated by all sides of the House. When the Government's intentions are completely clear, the consultation process about the most effective way to teach this subject will be greatly facilitated. I also warmly endorse what the right reverend Prelate said about the Government's views on the funding for adequate training for teachers of this very difficult subject.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I greatly respect the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in moving this Motion. He is quite properly concerned
1428
for the spiritual, moral and physical health and well-being of children. I hope that in turn he will respect my motive for disagreeing with him.
I too am properly concerned for the health and well-being of children. I see Key Stage 3 of the national curriculum as the appropriate and proper stage to start schoolchildren learning, in the words of the revised national curriculum, how the healthy functioning of the human body may be affected by diet, lifestyle, bacteria and viruses, including the human immuno-deficiency virus, the abuse of solvents, tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the booklet HIV amp; AIDS, which is subtitled A Guide for the Education Service. It is in no way intended as a school textbook. Teachers need themselves to have factual information. That does not mean that they will teach all that is in the booklet.
I should like to draw attention to another document published by what used to be the Department of Education and Science; namely, Curriculum Matters 6, "Health Education from 5 to 16". Paragraph 44 on "The scope of sex education" reads:
"The importance of sexual relationships in all our lives is such that sex education is a crucial part of preparing children for their lives now and in the future as adults and parents. In sex education factual information about the physical aspects of sex, though important, is not more important than a consideration of the qualities of relationships in family life and of values, standards and the exercise of personal responsibility as they affect individuals and the community at large. It is therefore quite common to find sex education taught as part of a programme of personal and social education,"—
known in schools now as PSE—
"sometimes in conjunction with religious education, as well as of a health education programme".
Nowadays in schools there is much teamwork on a subject as important as sex education. My experience of schools has been that there is very much a team effort in this field. While the facts may come within the science part of the curriculum, the personal and social education programme will be covered most adequately and very sensitively by the teachers of religion, the school nurse (who can take a very strong part in this teaching) and even teachers of English and History. If sex education is to be, as it should be, a part overall of health and wider education, it will come into every part of the curriculum.
I hope I can reassure your Lordships with two other documents which I urge noble Lords to read if they have not already done so. One is A Framework for School Sex Education, published by the Sex Education Forum. It has been endorsed by a great number of organisations—far too many for me to detail now. Perhaps I may just mention the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, the Jewish Marriage Council and the Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth. There is also a very important pamphlet published by the Health Education Authority which gives an outline of the training course which is directed at all those concerned with education and health—the health professionals, who have responsibility for training teachers in this area. A great deal of effort is now being put into helping teachers so that they can

1429
overcome the problems that have already been mentioned of embarrassment and, in many cases, lack of knowledge.
Education and health go hand in hand. In the last century Joseph Lister propounded the principle that bacteria must never gain entry to an operation wound. For that pioneering work in preventive medicine Joseph Lister was honoured with a peerage and a place in your Lordships' House. The team effort of the Department of Education, health professionals and teachers today is pioneering as effective a method of preventive medicine as possible to prevent the spread of this recently discovered virus. Antiseptics conquered bacteria in the 19th century. Education is the only hope we have at the moment to conquer the HIV virus in the 20th century.
In 1990 the Health Education Authority carried out research among 10,000 16 to 19 year-olds. Almost half of them said that they had been sexually active and nearly one third of them had had full sexual intercourse. The older they were and the more partners they had, the less likely they were to use condoms. Contraception to prevent pregnancy was seen as more important than safer sex.
The Health Education Authority believes that it is important for young people to have sound and appropriate sex education before they become sexually active. There is no evidence that sex education leads to promiscuity. It is mistaken to believe that children come to school as empty vessels and can be preserved in a state of innocence until adults decide that they are old enough to learn. Research by the Health Education Authority and others shows that even very young children have acquired information and formed opinions—often quite the wrong ones, as we have already heard—about health issues, including HIV and AIDS. Research indicates that children receive health messages from their environment and the media as well as from their parents. That is interpreted by them in a strictly literal sense to fit their own experience of the world around them. School health education needs to take account of the source of those health messages and of children's experiences. Teachers can then plan health education from the children's perspective, identify their health education needs and build a progressive programme in preparation for the HIV component contained within the statutory order for science.
Children want more information. A study carried out by Isabelle Allen for the Centre for Policy Studies indicated that 98 per cent. of school children want sex education in schools. It warns us not to confuse innocence with ignorance. The headmistress of Chapter School, a non-selective girls' school in Rochester in Kent tells me that in a recent survey carried out by Exeter University on what pupils think of school assemblies, one group of 12 year-olds said that they wanted more talks and information about "things like HIV and AIDS". Yet, according to a survey published yesterday, a quarter of schools have no sex education policy although that has been a statutory requirement since 1987. As stated so well in
1430
a letter to the Independent today, and stated in slightly different words, again very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, we ought to be asking how we can best teach the subject, not whether we should do so. Many parents also want more information from schools on these sensitive health issues.
The overall picture is this. Some aspects of sex education are contained in the national curriculum orders for science, Life and Living Processes. Five to seven year-olds (key stage one) should learn that,
"living things reproduce their own kind",
and eight to 11 year-olds (key stage two) should,
"understand the process of reproduction in mammals".
Eleven to 14 year-olds (key stage three) should,
"understand the process of conception in human beings [and] know about the physical and emotional changes that take place during adolescence and understand the need to have responsible attitudes to sexual behaviour".
In the delivery of the national curriculum in all its stages, consultation and involvement of parents, governors and teachers are not only desirable but essential. Consultation on a school's sex education programme is in fact required by law.
The core curriculum provides a basic framework for knowledge which is available to all young people which parents, teachers and governors can then present in a sensitive manner appropriate to the young people's age and stage of development. If the intention behind the Motion is that the consultation process might lead to schools not teaching this part of the core curriculum, that would have serious implications for other core curriculum subjects and potentially could open the floodgates to other areas being debated and removed.
There are other potential implications which are gravely worrying. If a conscience clause was interpreted as being a way of avoiding teaching the subject in the school, it would be totally unacceptable in that that would deny young people access to vital and possibly life saving information. Similarly, at present it is left to the discretion of governing bodies to decide whether parents can withdraw their children from sex education classes because of religious beliefs. I believe that that is the most appropriate way in which to ensure local sensitivity and respect for parental opinion.
Teachers have rights, parents have rights and children have rights. It could be five, 10, 15 or 20 years before today's school children will profit from the sensible health education that they received as part of key stage 3 science. We dare not put those precious children who are our charges at risk for the whole of their future lives through needless ignorance. We must debate how best to implement the revised science curriculum, not whether to do so.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for raising this important issue, although I cannot agree with his solution.
Since the order that we are discussing relates to the science curriculum, it is worth saying a word on the basic science of HIV and AIDS, although it has not been referred to. In recent weeks many noble Lords

1431
will have seen some considerable space in the press devoted to a theory that HIV does not cause AIDS and is not involved in its transmission in any way. That is certainly not the view of the majority of scientists concerned with the matter in this country. The group that I have the honour to chair held a well attended meeting on 2nd June at which that view was roundly refuted by some eminent scientists and the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health. I shall be happy to circulate a report of that meeting to any Member of your Lordships' House, whether or not he is a member of our group.
If HIV is the cause of AIDS, which is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists, and if HIV is sexually transmitted, among other ways, it seems absurd not to mention that in both the science curriculum and the more optional field of sex education.
I turn briefly to British Government policy which has been notably successful in containing AIDS compared with that of comparable European countries. On a comparable population basis, we have about half the incidence of Italy and one third of that in France and Spain. We need to ask ourselves why that is so. Although no effort has been spared in this country on treatment or research, the answer has to be prevention. That was reiterated strongly by the Chief Medical Officer at the meeting to which I referred. Despite our relative success compared with other countries, there is nonetheless significant evidence of a slow heterosexual spread into the general population, to which the Chief Medical Officer also alluded.
In his thoughtful and well informed speech, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, gave some figures. I need not repeat them. It would be a great mistake to retreat from any of the positions that have contributed or could contribute to the continuing success of government policy.
Turning to the Motion, there are a number of points which I wish to bring into play. Several have been mentioned already and therefore I shall be brief. First, I wish to deal with the breadth of opposition to the order. Much play has been made about the 4,000 letters of protest received by the department. I understand that nearly all of them came through a campaign orchestrated by the Plymouth Brethren, whose total membership in the United Kingdom according to the Christian Handbook for 1992–93 is 12,018. It is not therefore a large religious community. Apparently it carried out a similar campaign against the inclusion of computer technology in the national curriculum. I do not believe that it can be considered to be a representative group.
As regards other religious groups, it is certainly not the case that opposition is total. At a recent meeting of our own group we heard Mr. David Lankshear, deputy secretary and school secretary of the National Society (Church of England) for Promoting Religious Education at Church House. He said that many heads of Church of England schools felt that Key Stage 3 was the appropriate stage for the subject. However, there were some schools in inner London which felt that the subject should be introduced earlier in the age bracket, while outer London schools felt that it should be introduced later. There is sufficient flexibility for
1432
that to occur—at any rate that is my understanding. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked the same question and therefore it will be interesting to know from the Government whether that flexibility exists.
Catholic AIDS Link appears to share the Church of England view. Furthermore, it has suggested that if pupils are withdrawn there is a moral responsibility on parents to provide the information.
But casting our net wider than the Churches, it is interesting to note that a survey carried out in 1987 found that an overwhelming 96 per cent. of parents wanted sex education to take place in schools. There is, of course, a right of withdrawal in that regard, but when a school has adopted a sex education policy there are hardly any instances of the right being exercised. On the whole, parents in the United Kingdom appear to believe that such matters are better handled in schools. Where the science of AIDS is concerned, the belief that information should come from the school is likely to be even more widespread.
Another factor that we should not overlook is that, although we are talking, perhaps agonising, about Key Stage 3, there is among children much younger than 11 a great deal of confused knowledge about AIDS. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, read out a note from the Health Education Authority. I had intended to quote from it but she has done so for me. The Royal College of Nursing holds the same opinion. In a letter the general secretary wrote:
"Finally, research has shown that from multi-media sources, children have an awareness, and more to the point misinformation about HIV and AIDS … All the more reason for teachers to be charged with correcting this situation".
I venture to query whether a group of elderly people—perhaps with the exception of my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool—assembled in this gilded Chamber has much knowledge or even conception about what goes on in primary school playgrounds. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford mentioned graffiti, magazines and many influences of that kind. I have even heard of cases in primary school playgrounds where the word AIDS has been used by young children as a swear-word or even as a curse. Yet here we are worrying about introducing them to the subject at the age of 11 or perhaps up to 14.
A further canard is that such teaching gives children ideas that they would not otherwise have and that it encourages them in promiscuity. But strong evidence indicates that increased levels of sex education are correlated to a higher age for first sexual encounters and to a lower rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion. That was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and my noble friend Lord Russell, who gave the sources of those surveys.
I turn now to the specifics of the Motion. Consultation already exists on the sex education side of the coin. It would not normally exist on mandatory areas of the curriculum. However, as I have suggested, there is no reason why there should not be a variable response as to when to introduce teaching on HIV and AIDS within the overall scope of Key Stage 3, which is normally applicable to children aged between 11

1433
and 14. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, in his original Question tabled in March, before the election, spoke of 13 as being an acceptable age. That might well be the view of some schools and I know of nothing which would stop them proceeding in that way. Of course, we await the Government's confirmation on that matter. Alternatively, as I have suggested, it might be wise to introduce such teaching earlier in our urban schools—for example, those in London—with a higher incidence of HIV and AIDS.
If accepted, conscience clauses would give rise to some curious anomalies. I do not deny that some teachers might not wish to teach about HIV/AIDS on moral grounds. But I venture to suggest that by far the bigger problem is that many teachers may feel unhappy with the subject on grounds of lack of competence and lack of adequate training in a sensitive subject area. Surely that is a matter for pre-service and in-service training, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. It is in any case an area in which no sensible head will force a teacher against his sincere objections and will delegate the job to someone more willing and able. Furthermore, if opting out of teaching became widespread, the large majority of parents who want their children to be informed could be unfairly confronted with a patchy service across the country so that those wanting such teaching would not obtain it.
The final prong of the noble Lord's Motion, added only a couple of days ago—it would confer a right of withdrawal on parents—is the one with which I have the least difficulty. I can envisage some religious or ethnic groups which would prefer not to participate. However, I would believe that to be unwise and I believe that with Catholic AIDS Link a moral duty would evolve on the parents to fill the gap.
As regards the offending booklet mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and quoted from by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, it is guidance for teachers, lecturers and youth workers. Perhaps it might benefit from some improvement and updating, but it is not intended for raw consumption in the classroom. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, complained that there was no moral guidance in the science curriculum and that therefore that was an inappropriate place to teach these issues. It must be remembered that the science curriculum is not expected to do the whole job. The vast majority of schools have adopted a sex education policy. Only 6 per cent. have decided against sex education, while some 20 per cent. are still undecided. In nearly three-quarters of schools scientific presentation will be supplemented by sex education in a wider moral context. That matter appeared to cause some noble Lords anxiety.
All in all, I hope that the Government will not accept the Motion and will stick to the decision made by Mr. Clarke when Secretary of State and to the position taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, on 5th March. If they wish to move from that position we are entitled to know why. I and others have demonstrated that there are no grounds for complacency in our dealings with this
1434
virus, despite the relative success of this country which I have mentioned. It would be a thousand pities if the Government were to take any steps which conflict with or weaken in any way their successful policy to date. I hope that that is what we shall hear from the noble Baroness when she winds up the debate.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I find it quite incredible that a Conservative Government should he preparing to oppose my noble friend's Motion. Let us see again what it says. It says:
"to amend the order to allow for consultation between parents, governors and teachers covering the teaching programmes on AIDS/HIV for 11–14 year old children; and to provide a conscience clause to allow teachers not to teach this subject to children of this age, and to allow parents to withdraw their children from particular lessons".
I should have thought that the Conservative Party and a Conservative Government would be in favour of everything that is said in that proposed Motion. I find it surprising that the right reverend Prelate could not support my noble friend.
Conscience clauses have been inserted in much legislation. Indeed, Part IV, Clause 76 of the Education Act 1944 gives parents the right to ensure that their children are educated in accordance with their wishes. As far as I know, that has never been repealed. Sikhs are allowed not to wear helmets on building sites in spite of the fact that that might endanger themselves and many of their colleagues. Time and time again conscience clauses are allowed but apparently they are not allowed to teachers and to parents.
I find it strange and incredible that so many speakers should not wish governors, parents and teachers to be consulted on matters of this kind. It is quite clear that teachers need to be consulted and helped. I am sure that all noble Lords will have seen the reports in the newspapers yesterday. I should like to quote from an article in the Independent headed:
"Children 'denied proper sex education"'.
It states:
"Thousands of schoolchildren are being denied adequate sex education in schools because teachers are too embarrassed to tackle the subject in depth and governors cannot agree what form it should take".
Therefore, already there is difficulty because teachers have not been properly consulted and trained. And yet, we are to impose a new duty on them to teach about AIDS and HIV.
Another paragraph in the article states:
"Education authorities frequently reported that teachers shied away from the subject. 'Some are uncomfortable teaching sex education, even after training', one health education co-ordinator said. Another said, 'teacher confidence, especially among males' was a problem".
Therefore, teachers already have a problem teaching sex education and yet we are proposing, without any conscience clause or consultation, to impose yet another duty which will cause even more difficulty for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said that this pamphlet is not to be used and will not be used as a textbook and that, in fact, the teaching would not be based on anything in it. And yet, page 13 of the pamphlet states:

1435
"The basis of any teaching offered",
that is, teaching on HIV and AIDS:
"should be the presentation of straightforward, factual information about the virus and about modes of transmission of infection—along the lines of the information provided in the early part of this booklet—in order to balance the incomplete and inaccurate impression which pupils may have gained from other sources".
We are assured that this pamphlet, which contains some lurid stuff, is really insignificant but the pamphlet says that its contents are to be the basis of teaching.
It seems to me that the Government are forcing schools to introduce ideas and concepts which would not normally occur to children, if that booklet is anything to go by. Indeed —and this concerns many of us here this evening and many of us not here this evening—it seems to me that homosexuality and heterosexuality are presented as moral equivalents. Most people in this country simply will not accept that.
In my view the order is yet another erosion of parental rights. It is the sacrifice of a parent's rights to guide the moral well-being of their children and it is sacrificing it to the newest politically correct attitude. Members of this House and another place then wonder why parents want to slough off their responsibilities when the state tells them that they may not have a conscience about what is taught to their children in our schools on matters of sex and sexual morality. As I say, it is little wonder that parents are becoming concerned about the state's attitude towards their ability to bring up their own children.
The Parent's Charter, which was put before the electorate at the last election, specifically provides that there should be choice. Where is the choice here to the parents as to whether their children should be taught in accordance with their own views and concepts? That right is being taken away from them and there is no conscience clause.
Even more incredible, if reports are to be believed, is that Conservative Ministers are now considering reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 16. Therefore, through this order, on the one hand the Government are seeking to prevent the spread of AIDS but, on the other hand, if reports are to be believed, they are considering—and I hope that those reports will be denied this evening—measures which must increase the practice of sodomy, which is a major cause of avoidable AIDS. Have they gone completely mad or are they in the grip of a powerful minority group determined to manipulate public opinion and the law to their ends and for their own purposes?
It is absolutely certain that Conservative Ministers are not listening to the electorate and are certainly not listening to their own party members. I wonder whether they consulted them before tabling this order. Did they even consult the Conservative Family Campaign which, just before the election, sent me a letter begging for a donation, though why they should send it to me I do not know. Of course I did not send a donation. I shall first wait to see what their attitude is towards the order. People as distinguished as Sir Bernard Braine, who is president of the organisation,
1436
and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—a Member of this House—are all concerned with the organisation. My guess is that the Government did not consult the Conservative Family Campaign group. Perhaps they did and I am doing them an injustice. If so, when the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will tell us the response.
It would be wrong to suggest that the Government are without friends in this matter. We see many of them in the House tonight. I do not know how, many there are on council and other estates throughout the country. According to an opinion poll 70 per cent. of the population would wish to be consulted about the matter. What is certain is that they have one friend in Capital Gay. It is a weekly newsheet for lesbians and gay men. It clearly supports the Government. On Friday 5th June it carried an article featuring my noble friend Lord Stallard and his amendment. Had I not seen the article I may not have spoken tonight.
The article states,
"The amendment, planned for debate on Thursday next week, has been slammed by Aids workers, who called the move `mindboggling.' Ceri Hutton, policy development officer at the National Aids Trust said they would light the move all the way through the Parliamentary process. She told Capital Gay: 'There is no way that religious or moral beliefs should get in the way of safer sex education"'.
We are there being told that moral and religious beliefs should not get in the way of what the state lays down as being proper safer sex education. In the last paragraph the article states,
"And while HIV and Aids does not specifically fit into lobbying group Stonewall's agenda, chief executive Ann Bond said the proposed amendment would put young people at risk because of their prejudices. Lord Stallard should look at his own conscience".
Clearly my noble friend has looked at his conscience. He has looked at it long and clearly. His conscience tells him, as my conscience tells me—let me make clear that unlike my noble friend I have no religious conscience—that it is not the state's business to ride roughshod over the consciences of other people. The prime duty to educate their children lies not with the state but with the parents. Let us never forget that. If in all conscience parents feel—whether religious or otherwise—that the state is not educating their child in matters of AIDS and HIV in a way which satisfies their own conscience, then those parents should have the right to say no.
That is all my noble friend is asking. He is asking that parents, teachers and governors be consulted. If they have a conscience then, in the last analysis, they should be allowed to exercise it. What, in the name of God in a democratic society, is wrong with that?
8.25 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the House may be surprised, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, may be shocked, to learn that I wish this evening to say a few words on behalf of the Christians known as the Brethren, or Plymouth Brethren, and to support their claim that as a matter of conscience they should be entitled to withdraw their children from lessons where the manner in which HIV is spread and steps to counter the spread are taught. That claim is not to be confused with the claim of conscience put

1437
forward, which I also share, that these matters should not be in a science syllabus; that if they are to be taught they should be taught within the sex curriculum where there is more room for teaching to be set in a moral framework.
The Brethren have been assiduous in their attempts to bring these matters before Parliament. I have been appealed to by one of them of my acquaintance. I have taken the opportunity also to question those of the Brethren who have been most assiduous in bringing their views to our attention in the hope that I may understand something of the views which are common to the Brethren. I sense that it would be presumptuous of me, a Roman Catholic, to claim to understand the full depth of their teachings or properly to express their case to the House this evening in any complete and fully understanding way. Perhaps for that reason I shall be brief.
Having said that, I understand that the Brethren find their rules of life and belief in the scriptures—the books of the New Testament. They hold in particular that they are to be and to live separate from evil. I understand that arising from that they find most orthodox Christians to be in error. I assume, put most simply, that it is because of our attitude to evil that they hold themselves apart from us. They seek to live in the world but not of it. A scriptural text they brought to my attention is to be found in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans:
"I will have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil".
The Brethren wish to teach their children about sexual matters within the family. First and foremost they wish to teach that the rule is that there should be chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. With that rule I wonder what need they and their children have to know of the possible spread of HIV by deviant sexual practices.
I conclude on this simple note. I could go on to ask whether children taught in that way are more likely to contract HIV than children stuffed with information. But I believe that that pragmatic question would not be consistent with the beliefs of the Brethren. So I merely ask that the consciences of the Brethren and of others who hold the same beliefs should now be respected and that they should have the right to take their children out of the teaching of HIV matters in the sex curriculum.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for raising this matter in your Lordships' House. I am concerned with the content of what it is proposed to teach 11 to 14 year-olds under the order. I shall confine my remarks to the danger of acquiring AIDS through sexual activity.
Because of the gravity of the threat of AIDS I understand why the Government want to make the teaching compulsory. However, such a move makes it all the more important to get the content of that
1438
teaching right. In particular, it must be appropriate to the age of the children concerned and it must also be frank and realistic, even if the message is hard to take.
In my opinion the material being provided by the DES contains some points that are inappropriate to youngsters of 14, let alone 11. However, I do not want to pursue that aspect of the matter at this time.
Quite rightly, the material advises against casual sex, multiple sex and sexual experimentation in risky situations. It also advises the use of condoms. In other words, children are advised to adopt the so-called safer sexual practice. Provided that that does not lead to illegal acts and under-age sex, all that is good as far as it goes. However, to think that will be enough to ward off AIDS completely is to delude ourselves and to mislead the children being taught. Just to take one point, condoms have never been foolproof as a means of contraception and they are unlikely to provide a 100 per cent. defence against AIDS. It seems to me that to leave safer sex there would be rather like running an anti-smoking campaign and saying to people that they should smoke low-tar content cigarettes but not going on to say that they should not smoke at all if they want to enjoy good health.
The material does not appear to spell out with sufficient emphasis the hard truth, that if any two people have a sexual relationship without knowing for certain that they are both free of HIV or AIDS infection they are playing a form of Russian roulette with their lives. Yet that is the key point which has to be got across to all of us, however much we want to believe differently. As regards sexual relations, the only safe way, other than total abstinence, is for two people, themselves free from infection, to be partners, and faithful partners at that, for life. That is what I understand God to say to us through the Bible.
In recent years society has grown to assume that many young people automatically will have a sexual relationship as soon as they are old enough. When young people do so to some extent they are fulfilling that assumption. If they are to survive the AIDS epidemic they must be warned of the dangers and taught that there is another way. That way was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he quoted the World Health Organisation saying that the most effective way to prevent HIV transmission is to abstain from sexual intercourse or for two uninfected individuals to remain faithful to each other.
It is not a question of moralising but of facing the facts. The watchword must be one person, one partner, for life. Because I feel that at the very least the emphasis in the DES material is wrong, I support the Motion.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I am delighted that at last he is getting some support. I am staggered particularly by some members of my own teaching profession who seem unable to read the terms of the Motion. It is very simple in what it asks and I say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. It is not saying that there should not be health education. There is no such suggestion. The fact is that sex education was originally included in a

1439
totally different way. It is now being transferred into science and that has changed the whole concept: The fact is that parents cannot now use a conscience clause but they could before.
There is nothing very strange about withdrawing children from a particular subject or withdrawing because of a conscience clause. I was educated at a Catholic school, and all Protestants and Jews who attended at that school had the right to withdraw their children from religious education. No one ever thought that that was strange. Those children did not miss any other part of the curriculum. We must give the parents and the teachers the right and ensure that it cannot be taken away from them. There is an effort to be fashionable. Some of the remarks that some of us make are not fashionable any more. Conscience—what is that?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, one must be politically correct.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, that is right. One partner—that? I have grandchildren of all ages —I am very blessed—and great-grandchildren. Today's 14 year-olds are not very different from the 14 year-olds in my day. As a teacher I know that if you teach children something and tell them intensively about AIDS and how to avoid it, and if you explain about oral sex and other perversions, a 14 year-old is at just the age to experiment. As my noble friends say, you do not have to use everything in the pamphlet. That point has been put right. Why is it in the pamphlet and given to the teachers? It provides the background.
I watched a group of my grandchildren the other day. I could not see any evidence of this great desire to have some kind of sex. They did exactly the same as the children did when I was teaching: the boys got together in a corner and rather enjoyed pushing one another and the girls got together in another corner discussing things. I could not see any evidence of sex. I have discussed with them whether they see drugs at school and whether they hear this or that. I asked them what they understand. They talked to me freely. You must put over a straightforward message.
I still believe that the Old Testament had something to say. I was delighted when my noble friend mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. If you wish to see evidence of global warming and of all the other events which are happening, you have only to reread the Old Testament, the literature about the fall of the Roman Empire, if you want to be a little more up to date, or the fall of the Greek Empire. Those accounts include greed, perversion and all the matters which will become prevalent in our society if we are not very careful.
I know it is unfashionable, and I am sorry, but in my view it is the duty of the parents to talk to their children about such matters. What kind of parents are they if they cannot explain a simple thing when a small child says "How did I get here?". Do they say, "I am sorry, dear, I cannot tell you that. You had better run and ask the teacher". What total nonsense!
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that AIDS is a killer disease. Applying that test, children should
1440
have explicit information about lung cancer which is also a killer disease. They should also have explicit information about heart disease, cancer of the pancreas and various other illnesses which are all killer diseases. Those matters can be included in health education. I cannot quite see where they can be fitted into science. That is the whole point. These issues are being shifted from one subject to another because of a particular order.
I believe that some of your Lordships have not visited schools lately. It is now quite acceptable to have boys and girls in every school. I do not care who you are, but it is not easy to give sex education to a mixed class of teenagers. I have listened to the people who give it in the social sense. They very dispassionately talk about this kind of thing and say: "Oh, you want to know about an orgasm. Well, it is something like this". We are talking about the basic aspects of human life which are love and procreation because we want children. These are the kind of subjects which we have to discuss with our children.
My noble friend is asking for something which is very simple, but what he has had to put up with! He has had all kinds of insulting letters. It is even worse if you say anything about dogs! There have been some very insulting letters about that subject. I have had hundreds of letters from parents, not cranks. I give this warning to the Government: several parents have said to me: "Why cannot we have a Bill that will make some of these issues totally legal, such as the right to withdraw?" We do not want to become threatening, but the parents feel very strongly about these matters. Rather unfashionably, some of us have tried to voice these issues. I know that the Minister is a woman of great understanding. We hope that, if she cannot give us the answers, she will at least pass on the questions to her noble friend. After all, Mr. John Patten is a very good practising Catholic. I note that he has not returned to listen to what we have to say. I must have a chat with him one day. How does a Minister think? Does one put one's conscience or one's job first? Although one cannot have everything, I was a bit disappointed by the right royal—
Noble Lords: The right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Phillips: Yes, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. All this reading about the Royals has been confusing me.
I like a clear message. If I ask somebody something, such as, "Can I do this or not?", I do not want that person to dissemble and to say, "On the one hand, but then again on the other hand." I want a yes or no answer. There is nothing wrong with our children that we cannot help them with and there is nothing wrong with our teachers, but let us give them at least some rights if they really do not want to teach this particular subject.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this Motion for our consideration today. It raises a

1441
most important topic and I fully support the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord and those underlying the Motion.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I, too, should like to hear a clear message. Unfortunately, however, this is not a dead simple subject about which we can be given a crystal clear message. I would align myself rather more with all that my noble friend Lady Cox has said, and despite the strictures that he received from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has said. This is a complex issue which needs the careful consideration that your Lordships have been giving it this afternoon.
I must apologise for I have a prior commitment and therefore cannot stay for the wind-up speeches which I should very much have liked to hear. I look forward to reading in Hansard tomorrow the reply of my noble friend the Minister to the questions that have been put to her. However, as I have said, I have a prior commitment for which I am already extremely late.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, correctly, he said that he hoped that this debate would not be about whether such teaching should be given, but about how it should be given. Therefore, in answer to what my noble friend Lady Brigstocke said, I hope that the debate on the question of how such teaching is to be given in our schools will continue. As I see it, we are all agreed on the necessity for such teaching.
Some have said that the teaching should be left to the parents. I am a parent and, like others, think that it is often easier for those who are not the parents to give such teaching. I do not believe that I have been as perfect in my dealings with my children on this subject as I should have liked. It is not easy. However, parents undoubtedly have a vital role to play and co-operation between parents and teachers is vital if this issue is to be dealt with adequately. I understand that, by far and away in most circumstances, such teaching is excellently given in our schools. However, there is undoubtedly a minority of schools in which it is not handled correctly.
Although we are dealing not only with the sexual method of the transmission of HIV and AIDS, but also with all the other methods, most of our discussion has centred on the sexual issue. I should like to endorse what some noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak ridge, have said, that the only safe way of not transmitting this disease sexually is total abstinence. As a Christian, I believe in the value of that and in the importance of stating it. From what I have read I understand that the use of condoms provides only a 95 to 97 per cent. safe method. I have been distressed by the DES guidelines that suggest that the use of condoms is a totally safe method. I believe that that is a misleading view which could be dangerous. If the guidelines are to be revised, I hope that there will be a change of emphasis along those lines.
I should like to comment briefly on the three sections of the Motion. First, I totally endorse the necessity—not just the importance—of
"consultation between parents, governors and teachers"
1442
as expressed in the Motion. I hope that the guidelines will emphasise that that consultation must be real, not just theoretical. All parties have a vital role to play.
I should also like to pick up what the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Guildford said about the value of schools informing parents about when teaching about HIV and AIDS is to be given. I say that for two reasons—first, so that the parents are ready and can have gathered the information that they need themselves; and secondly, so that parents can put this subject in the context of family values. I appreciate that that will be an extra bit of administration for schools and a pain; but if it can be done, I believe that it will be valuable every time.
The withdrawal of teachers would be unusual. However, if a teacher has a real conscience about the administration of such teaching especially to such a very young age group—and I accept that that is possible—I believe that there should be a right to pass such teaching to another teacher. There should be consultation with headmasters and headmistresses so that the right person is correctly equipped to carry out such teaching. Providing training and help for teachers is crucial given that we are talking about this young age group. I shall return to this point in greater detail in a moment. I hope that more training and help can be given to teachers because 10 times more sensitivity is needed when teaching this subject to this age group than when dealing with an older age group.
I turn now to the question of the right to withdraw children from such teaching. Let me say outright that I am unhappy about parents being given the right to withdraw their children from this teaching unless other effective teaching is substituted for it. The facts are important—especially for the older age group with which we are dealing. If such pupils miss out on some of the relevant facts, such as some of the dangers involved and the reasons for total abstinence or for taking other precautions, great injury could be caused.
My noble friend Lord Liverpool has already suggested to your Lordships that ACET—the AIDS Care Education and Training organisation—should be permitted to conduct this teaching. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could comment on whether that might be an alternative way of providing the teaching. If this matter was put in a Christian, biblical, sensible and sensitive context, many of the anxieties that parents and others have expressed about this subject could be overcome. ACET's people are trained, equipped and experienced in providing such teaching.
The question of how far parents should have the right to withdraw their children from national curriculum teaching is a difficult issue and one over which I shall leave a question mark.
I turn now to the age groups involved. I have discussed this matter with headmasters in order to sound out their experiences and views in the light of having had to administer this subject. It is disquieting to learn that some schools do not have an adequate policy. I hope that those schools which do not will think through these issues and will not shove them

1443
under the carpet. I am doubtful on the whole about whether it is right to administer any teaching on this subject to 11 year-olds.
I should like guidelines to schools to cover that issue. We are talking about the 11 to 14 age group because that is what is being stated; but I am doubtful about that. I suspect that it is right on the whole to give to 12 and 13 year-olds the scientific facts but to leave to 13 and 14 year-olds the emotional issues that are involved. This requires great sensitivity. I do not feel that the current guidelines are sensitive enough. Someone said that they are too heavy handed. Perhaps in the light of experience and what has gone on since their issue there will be scope in the coming year or two for their contents to be reconsidered.
I should like to take up the question of the right reverend Prelate on the context in which teaching is to be given. I believe that it should be given in the context of human relationships and of the family. That issue is sadly neglected.
In conclusion, I believe that this is an important issue. It needs to be treated with greater sensitivity. I hope that there will be a wider consultation on it.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I did not want to break into his well thought out speech but he was kind enough to comment on mine. He said that I was in favour of total abstinence. That would solve the housing problem rather quickly—total abstinence outside marriage.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I fully accept that point.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for giving us the opportunity of debating this most important matter. I hold the noble Lord in the highest esteem. He is one of the most caring and kind Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord and I share the same denomination in our Christian faith. I can understand the concern that the noble Lord and other noble Lords and Baronesses have in supporting the Motion to amend the order covering the teaching programmes on AIDS and HIV for 11 to 14 year-old children. Some noble Lords may remember that when the Education Reform Bill was passing through the House in 1988 I moved an amendment to include health education and life skills in the curriculum. At numerous conferences and meetings since I have heard many people interested in the promotion of good health say that this is necessary.
Until one has been involved very closely with people dying of AIDS I do not think it is possible fully to realise the devastation and full meaning surrounding the consequences of HIV when it leads to AIDS. AIDS is now a worldwide issue. It is not something vague which might happen in the future. It is with us. We cannot and should not be complacent. However pious and worthy are the sentiments underlying this Motion I do not think one can relax the need for a clear message so that young people growing up realize
1444
that they have to live alongside an infectious virus which is yet not fully understood and which can be a killer.
I should like to quote a passage from The Catholic responses to the challenges of HIV/AIDS education. It reads:
"As the primary teachers of their children, parents clearly have certain rights and duties as to the education of their children in personal, moral and spiritual matters. This places a responsibility upon parents to ensure that their children develop as healthy, emotional, sexual and spiritual persons. The refusal of parents to allow their children to be taught important information regarding such a major pandemic as HIV could be judged as failing in their responsibility to ensure both physical and sexual, as well as emotional health".
Children have inquiring minds. I know that from personal experience. Many children from about five years old want to know why I have to use a wheelchair. When I tell them that I have broken my back they often want to know more about how the spinal cord works and about the nerve supply. Once the explanation has been given, they seem satisfied. I feel that if teachers are going to teach children, many of whom will have inquiring minds, the teachers should be fully equipped to answer questions about the complex subject of the HIV virus and how it can develop into AIDS. Does the Minister feel that the teachers who will be doing this necessary part of education are fully trained and confident? I feel that teachers should opt out of their responsibility only if they feel that they are not adequately prepared to do a satisfactory job. This has been an important strand running through the debate. I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously.
Now that governors and head teachers have more responsibilities in running the schools, I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any way of ensuring that they are fully aware of the meaning of HIV/AIDS, so that they can answer questions which may be forthcoming from concerned parents. Parents should have the opportunity of understanding what their children are being taught, so that there is back-up between children, parents and teachers. In reality it can be difficult for many parents to communicate with children over personal matters. Children and parents can feel embarrassed and there can be a breakdown of good relationships. I sometimes feel that parents feel left out and ill informed. I should also like to ask the Minister whether parents will have a right of appeal if they feel that the way their children are being taught is unacceptable.
With the more open way of discussion which is typical of our modern way of life and with the use of radio and television, the real problems of violence, child abuse, rape and all the difficulties of life are uncovered and talked about in public. AIDS is an added problem, hanging over the world like a dark shadow adding to these dangers. I would hope that our aim will be that all human life should be seen as sacred and that its dignity should be respected and protected. Sensible, responsible education about HIV/AIDS is one way of helping to protect our future generations.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in urging the Government to amend the statutory order which makes AIDS education compulsory in the science curriculum and to allow for consultation with parents, governors and teachers and for parents to withdraw their children from these lessons if they so wish.
In other areas of legislation the Government have quite correctly encouraged parental responsibility and involvement. It seems odd that this commendable theme has not been followed in this instance. Indeed the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 makes parents and governors responsible for sex education.
I am not against teaching about AIDS in schools, although it may sometimes be more appropriately done in the home. However, I certainly take the view that parents who wish to undertake that role themselves should be permitted to do so and to withdraw their child from the relevant class. Indeed, the guidelines to teachers are negative in approach, containing what I would describe as crude condom-based information and dealing with perverted sexual practices which, in many cases, would not occur to 11 to 14 year-old children.
The order appears specifically to contravene the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which states that,
"where sex education is given [in schools] it is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to that provision earlier in his opening speech. The order also cuts across the European Convention on Human Rights and its five protocols. The convention says that when the state assumes the teaching burden it must respect the right of parents,
"to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
Finally, it ignores the 1991 Parent's Charter, which deals with parental rights and choice in the education of their children.
The message is clear: if you do not want to get burned, stay away from the fire. Alternatively, put another way: if you want to avoid AIDS, the wisest course of action is chastity outside marriage and fidelity inside marriage. Surely that is the message that the Government should be advocating, rather than a mishmash of somewhat questionable clinical measures which may inhibit the spread of the AIDS/HIV virus.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I did not originally intend to speak in the debate because I did not wish to oppose my noble friend Lord Stallard, for whom I have great respect and affection. Indeed, I have been a family doctor in his former constituency of St. Pancras for many years. I know at first hand what a friend he has been to local people. He has fought on their behalf time and again and won many battles for them against injustice and plain incompetence on the part of officialdom. I only decided to oppose the Motion when I realised that it might perhaps, without my noble friend's full agreement, be used as a Trojan Horse—or more appropriately perhaps the thin end of
1446
the wedge, because it is quite visible—to undermine a potentially promising development in our educational practice.
I submit that sex education cannot be divorced from teaching about AIDS and HIV. Sex education can equip young people to understand their developing bodies and emotions while they are at school. That helps them to cope better in the outside world both when they are at school and afterwards in early adult life. When properly taught, sex education does not deal simply with the mechanics of sex alone; it brings it into the whole context of human relationships, as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It also deals with the emotional struggles through which all children go as they change into young adults. To arm them with understanding and knowledge of their bodies and feelings is widely acknowledged as the best way to help them avoid the twin dangers of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, which now of course includes AIDS, as well as the emotional pain which can result from mistaken acts committed in ignorance.
Those issues were discussed many times and for many hours in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Education Acts of 1986 and 1988. As a result, safeguards for parents were built into the legislation. The governing body of every school is required to draw up:
"its own sex education policy in which they should take account of the statutory requirements of the Core Curriculum which are relevant".
At the time that the Bill was being enacted the AIDS epidemic was only just being faced. It is true that in the original Act HIV per se was not mentioned as part of the curriculum. But because of the grave importance of the AIDS epidemic it was felt vital that children should learn about it. Last October the revised national curriculum orders for science, as my noble friend pointed out, require pupils in Key Stage 3 to learn how,
"the healthy functioning of the human body may be affected by diet, lifestyle, bacteria and viruses, including HIV".
In addition, Curriculum Guidance No. 5 of the National Curriculum Council recommends as part of health education and as a cross-curricular theme that young people should be able,
"to discuss sensitive and controversial issues, such as conception, birth, HIV/AIDS, child-rearing, abortion and technological developments which involve consideration of attitudes, values, beliefs and morality".
It seems that they are all important areas of knowledge which should help to produce informed and responsible citizens. As has been pointed out by a number of speakers, it is surprising how much more mature are today's teenagers when compared with ourselves at that age, and perhaps for some of us in this House even with our own children. They are not shocked or embarrassed by such topics. As many noble Lords pointed out, reference has been made to those matters in the media. Last Wednesday ITV screened "A Small Dance" at 8 p.m. I thought that it was a brilliant play. I thoroughly applaud ITV for having screened it. It centred on the plight of a girl who was going through a teenage pregnancy due to her own ignorance.

1447
I suggest that very few parents know enough about AIDS to inform their children of its nature in any detail, should they wish, for instance, to withdraw their children from the lessons about AIDS in school. There are many myths about how the disease is spread, as well as the embarrassment which many parents feel when they are discussing sexual matters with their children. I suggest that to allow them to deprive their children of the chance to receive accurate and unbiased information, as my noble friend's Motion would do, would be entirely wrong. I assure my noble friend that children are not embarrassed by this kind of information. They are likely to be more attentive in fact than in any other class if the subject is effectively taught. To receive knowledge does not mean, as has been pointed out by at least four noble Lords, that children will be more promiscuous. In fact, there is evidence that the reverse takes place.
However, the continuing high rate of teenage pregnancy is a matter of concern for all of us, as is the ever-increasing demand for termination of pregnancy. There is plenty of evidence that this is due to lack of or inadequate sex education at school. Although AIDS is not spreading quite as fast as originally projected, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out, thanks very largely to our explicit and frank public health education, heterosexual spread of AIDS, as he also pointed out, is increasing. Therefore the need for knowledge is urgent.
Perhaps I may divert here to say that the standard, style and courage of the health education which has been used in this country against AIDS is much admired by other countries which have not been as successful as we have in slowing down the spread of the epidemic. This is especially true of the United States, where, although the problem is much worse than it is here, much more prurient attitudes, surprisingly, prevail. Such attitudes put a curb on effective health education.
As for the second part of my noble friend's Motion, no school is likely to force a teacher to teach sex education or knowledge of HIV or AIDS if they do not want to. In any case that would be completely counter-productive. The subject requires special preparation, and not all teachers wish to take part. I suggest that the situation is similar in National Health Service hospitals, where no doctor who has a moral objection to performing an abortion is required to carry one out. Current practice, I think, covers the problem envisaged by my noble friend and I do not think that he need have any fears if things stay as they are now.
What I fear may happen is that the Government will use the sort of fears—
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I did not want to interrupt him, but he is not comparing like with like. Under the Abortion Act there is a conscience clause to allow that physician to exercise his conscience and not participate in that kind of operation. That is all I am asking for. It does not apply under the science curriculum.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend need not worry. There is no headmaster or headmistress who would insist on a member of staff taking one of these classes if they felt unable to do so or did not wish to do so. What I fear is that the Government might use the kind of fears that are expressed by my noble friend —which I think are unjustified—to hold back funding for training teachers to undertake this vital part of education. It is not a skill which all teachers have and many do not feel prepared to take on the role since it did not form part of their curriculum at their teacher training college.
A recent survey by the Sex Education Forum, which in fact sparked off the article in the Independent which my noble friend Lord Stoddart, mentioned, suggests that the national curriculum, extracts from which I have quoted, is not being implemented fully in the important areas which we are discussing. Fewer than half of the local authorities surveyed still did not know how many of their schools had sex education policies. That seems to conflict with the data produced by the right reverend Prelate, but I think that they are possibly compatible. It suggests that there is more interest in sex education at the point where it is carried out in schools than by the local authorities. They do not seem to know what is going on in their schools.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, only 6 per cent. of schools have actually decided against having sex education policies or including it in their curriculum. The National Union of Teachers says that the Government appear to be cutting time and money for teacher training in sex education—the same skills that are required for sex education are required for education about HIV and AIDS. I hope that the Government will not be swayed by the minority lobby, which has been quite vocal this evening, in under-resourcing this extremely important part of education for real life.
9.13 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing the Motion and giving us the opportunity to look at this sensitive question and to focus upon the importance of arriving at the right, balanced decision which is vital to our young children and which will affect their whole outlook and approach to sexual behaviour. It is generally accepted that this is not a party political matter, and so I feel no embarrassment in telling the House that I support wholeheartedly everything the noble Lord said.
These issues are sensitive. On the one hand, the Government's perceived view, until now, as expressed by my noble friend Lady Denton in answer to the Starred Question standing in my name on 5th March this year, was that the disease of AIDS was so serious that the facts about it and how it is contracted must be compulsorily taught in all schools in pretty graphic detail from the age of 11 upwards.
On the other hand, I join with a number of noble Lords who, while agreeing that the disease is serious and that school children should be taught about it, question the wisdom of the relevant part of the 1991 national curriculum order on three main grounds:

1449
first, that 11 is too young to be taught the subject in such detail; secondly, that it should be brought within the general sex curriculum and not taught in an amoral way by the science or biology master; and, lastly, that there should be a provision for parents, on grounds of conscience or strong religious beliefs, to enable them to obtain permission for their children to opt out of that teaching, provided that they undertake to teach them the dangers of the disease in the privacy of their home.
As noble Lords are aware, there is a provision enabling parents to do that in the school sex education programme. There is some question—the point was raised by my noble friend Lady Cox—that if the Government maintain a compulsory education stance, they may be contravening the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that parents must be allowed to ensure that their children's education fits their religious views. I do not believe that there would be anything more than a relatively minimal—if I may use those two words consecutively—number of requests from parents for their children to opt out, especially if, in the view of the parents, it was being taught by the right specialist organisation, such as ACET, which I mentioned earlier this year and which was mentioned tonight by my noble friend Lord Brentford. That would do much to defuse the situation which is causing some parents considerable anguish and worry. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reflect on this matter. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
I shall deal briefly with how our European partners cope with the conscience question. I studied some constitutions. The constitution of the Swiss Federation states:
"It shall be possible for the adherents of all religious beliefs to attend public schools without being affected in any way in their freedom of creed or conscience".
The Spanish constitution contains similar words and provides:
"The public authorities guarantee the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious and moral instruction compatible with their own convictions".
Article 42 of the constitution of Ireland provides under "Education":
"The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children".
Lastly, the constitution of the Netherlands states:
"Education provided by public authorities shall be regulated by Act of Parliament paying due respect to everyone's religion or belief".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the Parent's Charter. Unfortunately I am unable to quote that verbatim but I suspect that it will contain some similar words.
France is the only European partner country about which I have been able to make inquiries as to how the subject is taught. I am told that until last year students were taught the subject between the ages of 14 and 16. As from this year, the minimum age has been reduced to 13, but parents have the right to enable their children to opt out on grounds of conscience or
1450
religious beliefs. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, 13 is the age from which children should first be taught the subject.
I thought it might be helpful to have the views of the Professional Association of Teachers on this subject as that association is a representative of the teaching profession. Two days ago I rang the general secretary of that association, Peter Dawson, who made some interesting and, I believe, helpful comments. I shall briefly outline those comments.
He agreed with me that the age of 11 was too young for children to be taught this subject. He endorsed 13 as the age he would prefer to see such teaching commenced. He said that it should be brought within the sex education programme. In other words he agreed with my views on that matter too, but I must assure your Lordships that I did not pressure him in any way at any stage during the telephone conversation. Mr. Dawson also stated that it was his view, and therefore the view of the association—I presume that was the case—that there should be a conscience clause as there is with sex education.
Finally—I thought these were his most important remarks —he stated that education is a partnership between teachers and parents and it is hard to think of any subject where this tenet should be more strongly recognised. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brentford for mentioning the possibility of using the services of ACET. I suggest that that is an avenue which might profitably be considered by the Government and by my noble friend the Minister. I hope she will express some view on that matter.
I accept that under the national curriculum order as it stands the Government are making worthy efforts to alert school children to the dangers of a disease for which at the moment there is no known cure. I repeat that that aim is a worthy one. However, I part company with the Government's stated view up to now in that I believe it is necessary to introduce some fine tuning along the lines proposed in this Motion and by noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Motion this evening.
As far as I am aware, there has been no debate in another place on this subject and it is therefore much to be welcomed that we have been able to give this subject an airing in your Lordships' House tonight. I hope my noble friend the Minister can give us cause to hope that this particular aspect of the science and national curriculum order 1991 can still be amended to take into account the concerns that have been expressed tonight.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—I speak now as I did not wish to interrupt his interesting speech—as he has firmly pegged his argument to the age of 13, which he appears to think is a suitable starting point, does he accept the point I made that much misplaced knowledge and misconception is rife in particular in inner city primary schools at a much earlier age? How would the noble Earl address that problem?
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it is impossible to control misinformation. However, I feel the right age

1451
at which the ordered informing and teaching of children should start should be at the age of 13 and no younger.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in rising at this late hour to support the courageous Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I am aware that much of what I wanted to say has already been said. Therefore I shall try to be brief. However, I wish to repeat that Section 46 of the 1986 Act places a duty on local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to ensure that any sex education is given in such a manner as to encourage pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. The long and the short of it is that making it compulsory to teach 11 to 14 year-olds about HIV and AIDS opens the door for those who wish to flout those provisions of the 1986 Act. I join other noble Lords in saying that this kind of sex education must remain optional for 11 year-olds, and should be a matter for their parents' discretion.
At first sight, one might have been slightly less suspicious of those who secured its inclusion in the compulsory curriculum because they slipped it into science, even if they did so when they thought no one was looking. Science teachers are, I suppose, less open to the propaganda of the politically correct sex, race and class brigade than are teachers in softer disciplines. But, on the other hand, science teachers may not be entirely at ease with all the moral and family considerations required by the 1986 Act, not because they are not thoroughly moral people themselves but because it is a pretty boggy area, as I hope I shall show.
Science teachers may, therefore, have to rely on extraneous material. As other noble Lords have suggested, I am afraid that it would be natural for them to rely on the Department of Education and Science's booklet, HIV and AIDS: A Guide for the Education Service, of November 1991. I am glad that other noble Lords have referred to that document in suitably disparaging terms.
One cannot but agree that that booklet encapsulates an aggressive disregard for Section 46 of the 1986 Act. Nowhere does it contain the smallest concession to moral considerations or the value of family life. For instance, paragraph 10 casts doubt on whether homosexuals are particularly at risk to AIDS. Paragraph 11 continues as follows:
"In teaching about HIV and AIDS, therefore, it is important to avoid giving any impression that it is a condition confined to certain 'high risk groups'. People risk infection because of what they do, not what they are".
The recent series of articles in the Sunday Times would appear to cast some doubt on that statement. To ram some of the rest of that amoral booklet down the throats of even 14 year-olds, especially girls, would be a deeply immoral act.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke gave examples of other teaching materials which are available and which are less offensive. I have here some material which I understand is widely used in schools. I fear that I should quote from some of the pamphlets put out by the organisation concerned, which is called
1452
AVERT, or the AIDS Education and Research Trust. I have two pamphlets here, one called AIDS & Young People, and the other called AIDS Working with Young People. Both pamphlets are entirely technical. There is no question of any moral or family value in any of the material. The bits which I suppose I should quote to your Lordships, with much distaste, concern oral sex, which is not exactly what one wants promoted to even one's 14 year-old daughter.
I shall spare your Lordships the technical details of oral sex, which are described at some length, but I hope noble Lords will get the flavour of the pamphlets from the following two quotes. The headline is a large one: "Oral Sex". Underneath it says, "Risky?" It goes on to say, having described that activity in great detail:
"This can be very pleasurable and is common among heterosexual couples and homosexual couples of both sexes".
The next headline continues:
"Are there any sexual activities which are completely safe?"
We are told that there are a few. Then the pamphlet advises as follows:
"There are also no risks of infection from mutual masturbation, so long as you don't have cuts or sores on your hand".
I would be happy to put those documents in your Lordships' Library, but I assure noble Lords that the flavour continues in exactly the same way. The thought of forcing that material down 14 year-old Moslem girls seems to me to be asking for riots.
So, to finish as quickly as I can, perhaps I may press my noble friend the Minister as to whether the Government could not take teaching about the sexual aspects of AIDS and HIV out of the compulsory curriculum and place it in an optional area instead. One option might be to put AIDS education into the non-statutory guidance produced by the National Curriculum Council. I understand that Curriculum Guidance (No. 5) on Health Education, from the NCC already refers to AIDS. No doubt that could be suitably expanded, if necessary.
I cannot help feeling that the much respected chairman of the National Curriculum Council might welcome that suggestion. In a letter to me yesterday he agrees that it is impossible to teach children about the HIV virus without giving information about how the disease is transmitted. That might be a question of degree, I suppose.
But then he goes on and he—the Chairman of the National Curriculum Council—writes in a rather interesting paragraph:
"As I understand the legal position, sex education in the 1986 Act is only voluntary where it does not conflict with the statutory requirements of the National Curriculum. My Council felt that the science Order should refer to the HIV virus and also to related topics which raise moral issues but that they should be properly and sensitively handled within the school's own approach to these matters".
Then comes the key expression:
"As a parent, however, I recognise that the issue is finely balanced".
If such an eminent person as the Chairman of the National Curriculum Council thinks that the decision is finely balanced, why not let parents take it for their children? Surely the Citizen's Charter goes at least as far as that. Another possibility might be to let AIDS

1453
education form part of the personal and social education curriculum, which on the whole is a pretty dreadful subject, largely controlled by the sex, race and class vigilantes. But at least it is voluntary.
I am sure there are other parts of the voluntary curriculum where AIDS education could be made available to 11 to 14 year-olds. As a last thought in this regard—I do not know what the right reverend Prelate may think of it—I wonder whether it might form part of religious education where, I venture to suggest, science may yet come to discover that it belongs anyway.
I support the Motion and very much look forward to my noble friend's reply to those questions.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand many of the concerns that my noble friend Lord Stallard expressed when moving this Motion. I know that they derive from strongly held convictions and from his faith. I know too that he is most concerned about AIDS and its spread. I respect his views but I regret to say that on this occasion, as he knows, I cannot support him. I must assure my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon that it has nothing to do with being politically correct. Indeed it is a little insulting to those Members of your Lordships' House who oppose this Motion to suggest that the reason for doing so is that they are politically correct.
I oppose the Motion, first, because I believe that it would set an unfortunate precedent which would undermine the national curriculum. I oppose it secondly and more strongly because I have been convinced by the many expert bodies concerned to stop the spread of AIDS that it is vitally important for all young people to be properly informed about the disease and that the right place to do that is as part of the normal curriculum in schools.
Consultation on how to teach sensitive issues is of course desirable. There can certainly be no opposition to that. However, at present there is nothing to prevent consultation between a school and parents on any matter. Indeed, it should be encouraged not just on this question but on the science curriculum more generally and on the curriculum as a whole. Successful schools always involve parents in their work wherever they can. They certainly should consult widely and inform parents about their policies.
It is already a statutory requirement for school governing bodies, on which parents and teachers are represented, to draw up their own sex education policies and take into account the statutory requirements of the core curriculum where they are relevant. Consultation is needed both to take into account the parents' suggestions and to allay their fears. I accept what my noble friend and other noble Lords have said; namely, that we need to be sure that more parents are aware of their rights in this respect, in relation not only to sex education specifically but to the rest of the curriculum too.
However, there is no need to amend the statutory order to allow for consultation, as I am sure the
1454
Minister will agree. It is allowed for. So it is a little hard to see how that part of the Motion would have any useful effect. The opportunities are already there.
The second part of the Motion provides a conscience clause which would allow teachers to opt out of teaching the subject. What is the point of having a national curriculum if we make it possible for teachers to opt out of teaching it? There is little doubt that a conscience clause of this kind would undermine the national curriculum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, when he made the point that there are many aspects of the national curriculum on which teachers might feel strongly, ranging from texts provided in the English curriculum to the question of whether children should be tested on certain aspects of the curriculum. Despite what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon said, a provision for a conscience clause in the secular curriculum could create serious management problems for head teachers and for governors. I believe that it is unnecessary too. The statutory order does not specify that provision for teaching about HIV/AIDS must be by a science teacher in a science lesson, although that would be the normal expectation. However, as other noble Lords have said, schools have flexibility to find the most appropriate teachers to take on the task; and that is what I am sure will happen. Teachers who are ill-equipped to do so through insufficient training on how to handle a sensitive area such as this, should not be required to take it on. I very much agree with those who have made that point. However, it does not require what seems to me the rather heavy-handed approach of the conscience clause to take into account the difficulties that some teachers may have.
What is needed—I agree with my noble friend Lord Stallard and other speakers—is better training, both initial and in-service training, and more resources and support for teachers to develop both their skills and their confidence in dealing with the sensitive issues involved. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
It is also important that teaching should not be narrowly scientific but should, in the context of health education and sex education, more broadly draw out the moral questions and discuss the context in which individuals make choices about their behaviour. However, in my experience many science teachers already do that when teaching, for example, about human reproduction. I thought my noble friends and others were a little unfair to science teachers in some of the comments that they made.
The third part of the Motion—that parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from particular lessons in the secular part of the national curriculum —again raises problems. It seems to me to set a rather undesirable precedent. I share the concern that was expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It could open up many other parts of the curriculum to the same pressures. It could mean that lessons and planning were disrupted and could pose a problem for schools about what to do with pupils who had been withdrawn. Worst of all, it could mean that some pupils, though perhaps only a few, would be withdrawn from classes which all should attend in

1455
order to acquire some understanding about a devastating but entirely preventable disease to which any of them could be exposed if they remain ignorant about how it is contracted. Moreover, it is a disease which they in turn can spread to other young people whose parents did not withdraw them from lessons about it. We must ask ourselves whether it is right to expose young people to risks in that way.
Learning about the disease at school should not be a taboo subject. Nor is it possible, even if we wished to do so, to protect young people from exposure to the issue that it raises. They will hear about it in the playground. They will see, hear or read about it in the media. As the right reverend Prelate said, surely it is better that they should be informed by responsible adults with experience of teaching and dealing with young people's questions and anxieties in a sympathetic way. The alternative is that they pick up hits and pieces of information from various sources which may or may not be accurate and which they may or may not understand.
I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon when he implied that sex education is primarily a parental responsibility. It is also a responsibility of schools and teachers, as others have already said during the debate.
Some speakers have suggested that 11–14 years is too young to start learning about HIV and AIDS. It will be up to individual schools to decide when they introduce the subject into the curriculum within that age group. Many may prefer to leave it to the age of 13 or 14, as the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, proposed. That is probably acceptable but to leave learning until later would not be acceptable. We know from recent Health Education Authority surveys that one-third of young people have had sexual intercourse by the age of 16. We also know that one-third of 16 to 19 year-olds do not believe that it is necessary to change their lifestyle as a result of HIV. It is worrying that young people appear to see HIV as a threat to others but do not see themselves at risk. We must get across the fact that all sexually active people are at risk if they fail to take sensible steps to protect themselves. It is a frightening statistic that one-quarter of 16 to 19 year-olds say that they would have unprotected sex with a new partner.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, young people also need to be aware that HIV/AIDS is spreading rapidly within the heterosexual population. The number of cases of AIDS acquired by heterosexual intercourse increased by almost 80 per cent. last year. Moreover, HIV/AIDS has concentrated more and more among young people; 20 per cent. of new HIV-positive cases are aged between 15 and 29 with 50 per cent. under 29. Among women with AIDS, 40 per cent. are aged between 15 and 29 and most became infected in their teens.
I am aware that many of your Lordships would prefer us to delay the teaching of such a delicate and difficult subject until the children are older. I have some sympathy with that but the statistics confirm what all health education experts say; that we must inform young people before it is too late. It is also
1456
unrealistic to hope that most people will accept the view that premarital sex should not take place. They will not.
Any of us who have had friends who have died from AIDS, as I have, will know that it is a terrible disease. At present we cannot cure it, although we must hope that a cure will soon be found. Until it is we can stop its spread only by improving public understanding of how the infection is transmitted. We must ensure that all pupils have access to that information; to do otherwise would be thoroughly irresponsible. However difficult and unpleasant the task, the human and economic costs of failing to take it on are too great to ignore.
I hope that my noble friend will not wish to divide the House on this matter but will instead allow the Minister to take away what has been said and to examine it carefully. In particular, I hope that the Government will reconsider the guidelines on how to combine the teaching of factual information in the science curriculum with teaching about relationships in the cross-curricular subject of sex education. In that way parents will be able to have their say within a more coherent structure. I hope that they will be persuaded of the importance of their children being given the information that they need to avoid contracting this terrible disease. I believe that they will be persuaded that it is needed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wish to make one comment because she is so involved in education. There is the added problem that many young children in schools, perhaps in primary schools, have HIV. Therefore, the problem is more than sexual; there must be an understanding of the virus so that children are not frightened of it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Baroness said and I totally agree with her.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I start by saying that I think the issue we are considering this evening is for many of us one of the more sensitive and difficult questions that we are likely to face in this House. It is a matter in which few of the arguments are clear cut; and where for many of us there is a real conflict between two incompatible courses of action, both of which are intended to safeguard the well-being of our young people and both of which carry, in their own ways, a cost. It is also about education and the role of schools in fulfilling their responsibilities under the law; that is, that all teaching should be concerned with the moral, spiritual and cultural well being of our children as well as their physical and academic well being.
In considering these courses of action, it is important for us to be clear on the agreed facts surrounding this issue. Perhaps I may spend a moment or two setting these out. Here certain facts about the threat presented by HIV and AIDS are, I think, generally accepted. Although its origins remain obscure, it seems that few cases of AIDS were known

1457
before the beginning of the 1980s. The virus was identified in 1983. My advice from the Department of Health is that, according to estimates by the World Health Organisation, some 10 million to 12 million people worldwide have already been infected with HIV, of which 2 million have developed AIDS. In the UK, 5,451 cases of AIDS had been reported by the end of 1991. Approaching 17,000 people in the UK were known to be HIV positive; but the true total of those infected is likely to be much higher.
In many countries, the rise in cases of HIV infection and of AIDS has been considerable. In the UK, we have been, relatively speaking, very fortunate in that overall the numbers affected by AIDS and known to be infected by HIV remain low.
The evidence from other countries suggests that continuing public education is needed if our relatively low growth in infection is to be sustained. In the absence of a cure—and it is important to note that there is as yet no cure, and that in spite of the intensive scientific effort devoted to the matter, there seems no likelihood of the development of a cure in the near future—the only weapon available to us in our efforts to curb the spread of the disease is awareness and improved lifestyles. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said, a more moral lifestyle would certainly go a long way towards reducing the incidence of HIV and AIDS.
It was for those reasons that my right honourable friend concluded last Autumn that those who had expressed strong concerns about the need for specific provision for education about HIV in the revised science order of the national curriculum had a sound case.
The revised science order, which is due to come into effect on 1st August, requires pupils at Key Stage 3 to study:
"ways in which the healthy functioning of the human body may be affected by diet, lifestyle, bacteria and viruses (including the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV))".
I should say also to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that there is absolutely no flexibility whatever as regards transferring that responsibility to the age of 14 plus.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps the Minister misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that the responsibility should be transferred to 14 plus. I suggested that there is a possibility, within the 11 to 14 age group, for individual schools to decide the best point at which to introduce teaching about HIV and AIDS.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, believes personally but she referred to something which my noble friend Lord Liverpool, said; namely, that that subject may be taught more appropriately to an older age group. I believe that the noble Baroness said that there is flexibility to do that. I am merely stating that there is no flexibility at all.
Key Stage 3 means, broadly speaking, the age range 11–14: but it is of course for teachers to judge the point within that span when their pupils' level of maturity and understanding makes it appropriate to introduce
1458
the topic. I should perhaps make it clear that the original order gave the opportunity for teachers to introduce the topic. The revised order makes that opportunity a requirement, with the aim of ensuring that schools give their pupils accurate information about the virus. Here I must stress that—deliberately —the requirement is phrased in sufficiently general terms to give schools wide discretion to decide exactly how they should fulfil that duty. Some may decide to incorporate teaching about HIV into the science curriculum. Others may prefer to incorporate this teaching into their wider programmes of personal, social and health education or sex education. And I have already noted the discretion schools have to decide the age at which their pupils should be introduced to the topic, except that it must be dealt with within the age range 11 to 14. I shall come in a moment to the legal framework within which schools should discharge their responsibility and the clear guidance my department has given as to the context within which sex education should be delivered.
The inclusion of the reference to HIV in the statutory order does not denote any change in the department's policy on teaching about HIV and AIDS which was first set out in the mid-1980s, when the department first issued guidance and teaching materials to schools after extensive consultation with interested organisations—including, in particular, the Churches. The department's Circular 11/87, which remains in force, stressed the importance of introducing pupils in their later years of compulsory schooling to the facts about HIV and AIDS, and the need to ensure that the topic was approached in accordance with the school's overall policy on sex education. Material has been prepared to help teachers in that task, some of which I fear is not very good. Indeed, having read through most of it I must say that some of it is wholly inappropriate. If I can do no more tonight, I hope to raise parents' awareness to challenge the schools, the departments and the teachers who are peddling the sort of literature referred to by my noble friend Lord Pearson.
Governors have the power under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to determine the way in which the subject is taught, the content and indeed the materials used. Therefore, any materials which come to a school can be rejected by governors and teachers. There is no requirement on the governors to consult with parents. Best practice suggests that they should, and it is my department's wish that they should. But there is no such requirement.
There may be a little confusion on the interaction of the national curriculum and the legal requirements relating to sex education, and I should like to take this opportunity to clear that up.
The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 introduced two major requirements relating to sex education in schools. First, it specified that governing bodies should determine whether their school should offer sex education and, if they so decided, what its form and content should be. Secondly, the governors and others involved in providing sex education were also required to ensure that as far as possible such education was given in such a way as to encourage pupils to have due

1459
regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. Those responsibilities and that clear moral framework remain in force. Again, referring to the comments of my noble friend Lord Pearson, I have some doubts, but if the part of the literature to which he referred was produced in the classroom in the form he described, it would be in clear breach of the moral framework.
The national curriculum, introduced following the Education Reform Act 1988, now requires all secondary schools to teach certain basic elements of sex education. Pupils at Key Stage 3 are required to learn about the processes of conception in human beings, to know about the physical and emotional changes that take place during adolescence and to understand the need to have a responsible attitude to sexual behaviour. But it remains the responsibility of all those responsible for providing sex education in the school—governors and teachers—to do so in such a way as to bring home to young people the moral dimension and the prime importance of the family. That applies equally to those elements specified within the national curriculum, including, from the Autumn term, the requirement to teach about HIV, and to any more extensive programmes of sex education which governors decide their schools should provide. I believe that that is a crucial safeguard of which all parents should be aware. If they are not, my department could issue guidance to schools about it. I will go away with the strength of this debate behind me to ensure that we do just that.
Parents should know that governors must draw up, and keep under review, a written statement of their sex education policy. As parents they have the right to see such a written statement and, if they wish, to raise the issue with governors at the annual meeting which every governing body must hold in order to allow parents to discuss the way in which they are discharging their duties. The department's Circular 11/87 emphasised the need for schools to involve parents as fully as possible in the formulation and development of such policies.
I hope that parents will take full advantage of their rights in this difficult but important area. If parents are unhappy with what is being taught and the form in which it is being taught they should pursue their anxieties with the head teacher and the governors. When they believe the law is being breached and governors are not accepting their responsibilities they should inform my department. There are avenues of complaint if they fail to secure satisfaction. I should myself be glad to be advised of flagrant examples of breach of responsibility.
In particular, I would encourage parents to open up to debate the need for schools to consider their own circumstances and the differing needs and levels of maturity and understanding of their pupils. For example, the policy developed, after full discussion with parents, by the governors of an inner city school may well reflect a high level of pupil awareness, even among relatively young pupils, of the existence of HIV and AIDS. Such a policy will be very different from the approach adopted by governors in areas of the country where the prevalence and the level of
1460
awareness of HIV and AIDS are much lower. It is, I believe, one of the strengths of our current arrangements that such differences can fully and properly be accommodated. It is also worth noting that Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibits a local authority from promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. Again, some of the matters which we have heard in the course of the debate tonight highlight the need for that clause in the Act.
I should now like to turn to the specific question of right of withdrawal from certain aspects of the curriculum. Your Lordships will be well aware that we have long enshrined in law a right for parents to withdraw their children from religious education and collective worship. That stems in some measure from the historical organisation of schools in this country. We have derived great benefit from a system which embraces both state-maintained schools, where religious education has been effectively nondenominational, and Christian, and voluntary schools, most of which are associated with a particular faith or denomination. Not all of the children attending a school, whatever its character, will necessarily belong to the faith or denomination which that school's religious education reflects. It has therefore been accepted that the parents of such children should be able to withdraw them from that specific area of teaching and from that area only.
The introduction of the national curriculum was within the context of an aim specifically stated in the Education Reform Act of 1988 to ensure that all children were fully prepared by their schooling for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Parliament agreed at that time that it should be possible to reach a broad consensus on what education would be needed to fulfil that aim. It ensured that the shape and content of the secular curriculum should be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny through an extensive process of consultation and legislative procedures. For religious education new provisions in the shape of local committees were introduced to ensure that the framework for religious education in any area accorded with the wishes of its population.
There will occasionally be areas where those two interests, the secular and the religious, to some extent overlap. The current case is one. There are strongly held and irreconcilable views. After careful consideration of the issues, the Government have taken the line that they should follow the broad principles which Parliament agreed should be enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988: that the curriculum should fully prepare all pupils for the challenges and problems, as well as the opportunities, which their adult lives will present; and that to this end all pupils are entitled to receive a broad, comprehensive curriculum. To create rights of exemption from aspects of the secular curriculum would not in my view be in the interests of securing an effective, broad education for every child. That must be our first concern. However, I must repeat that the teaching of sex education and HIV within national curriculum

1461
science must, and I repeat must, have due regard to moral considerations and the value and promotion of family life.
I fully understand the strength of feeling which exists on this extremely sensitive issue. Indeed, I personally share the concerns of many who have spoken today. I believe that we all recognise the dilemma facing us: on the one hand, there is a clear need to do all we can to protect young people from this disease; on the other, we are properly reluctant to introduce them to its implications during what ought ideally to be a period of their lives when they should be free of the worries that such matters may bring.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government have weighed these two considerations very carefully. We do not come lightly to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of our children to ensure that they are all made aware, as sensitively as possible, of the facts and issues surrounding HIV and AIDS at an age when they are able to understand them. We insist that this must be undertaken by schools in such a way as to bring out fully for young people the moral considerations and the importance of family life. Teaching in this sensitive area cannot be value-free and it is for governing bodies to ensure that the national curriculum requirements are put into a clear moral framework.
We are embarking on a programme of inspections of all our schools. Inspectors will be required to look at all areas of the school curriculum, especially in relation to national curriculum requirements. They will look at how cross-curricular themes are dealt with, including health education. They will look too at the governing body's policies concerning the curriculum, including their policy on sex education and HIV and AIDS, and say whether the curriculum taught in the school is consistent with those policies. They will be under a duty to report on pupils' moral and spiritual development.
I should now like to pick up on a few points that have been made during the debate. Like other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock was worried about flexibility between the key stages. There is a considerable amount of flexibility between the key stages; but, as I said earlier, the science order requires that an introduction to information about HIV be given in Key Stage 3—that is, between the ages of 11 and 14. There is no discretion to delay the introduction beyond the age of 14.
I have been asked about consultation. There has been some criticism about there being very little consultation. The HIV reference was inserted in the science order as a result of the constructive representations that were made during the consultations on the Secretary of State's proposals. There was then a further stage of widespread statutory consultation on the draft order, which included the reference.
I have also been asked about teacher training. We have provided grant support for the in-service training of teachers, youth workers and advisers. In 1987, under the LEA training grant scheme, the department introduced a separate programme to support
1462
in-service training for education professionals—initially on drugs-related issues, but since 1990 it has included wider preventive health topics, including HIV and AIDS. It is estimated that during the period 1987–91, some 100,000 training course places were provided for teachers, advisers and youth workers.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked that secular education should not be introduced too early in the key stage. I believe that he said that it was a matter for the judgment of the governors. It is certainly a matter for the judgment of governors and teachers, but the science order is sensitive about this and emphasises that knowledge of their bodies' natural processes should proceed in pace with the changes that take place during adolescence. A statement of attainment requiring an understanding of reproduction is pitched at level seven, which is the top of the range of the levels for Key Stage 3. That is a clear signal to teachers that this is material for pupils who are approaching the end of the key stage.
I was asked whether it is important that teaching about sex and the HIV virus should be within the broader context of social education. I must repeat that the placing of HIV in the science order does not remove the protection of the requirement to pay due regard to moral considerations and to the importance of the family. That provision of the 1986 Act continues to apply to sex education, whether it is within the science curriculum or the secular part of the curriculum.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the HIV booklet. It states early on—I believe in paragraph 3—that its purpose is to provide basic information for all teachers for professional purposes. There is a specific reference in paragraph 37 to the provisions of the 1986 Act.
On the issue of whether there is a discrepancy between the 1986 and the 1988 legislation, I must advise your Lordships that the 1986 Act provides no arrangements for consultation with parents. The discretion is for the governors who may or may not consult the parents. That is something that I must take back to my department for discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, asked whether there is a right of appeal. There is no right of appeal. Parents can challenge only if a school is in breach of its legal obligation. There is no right of appeal if parents simply do not like what is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about consultation with parents. I refer him to paragraph 11 of the department's Circular 11/87. I could send it to him if he would find that helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether teachers have access to good teaching materials. The department issued to all secondary schools in 1987 a video pack entitled Your Choice for Life. Since at that time there was little material available for use within schools an independent evaluation indicated that schools found it useful. Since then a good deal of additional material has been produced by various organisations, including the Churches. The Health Education Authority maintains a regularly updated

1463
annotated list of the resources currently available. I repeat my plea to parents to take an interest in the materials that are used in the school.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as the Minister said that she is not quite happy and will take the matter back to her department, does she feel that there should be a right of appeal if parents are worried that what their children are being taught is not what they would like them to be taught?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, parents have powers to challenge. They can certainly challenge schools that are in breach of the Act. It is also possible under one part of the 1986 Act for parents to have a view about the content and the way the subject is taught. They do not have the power to say whether it should be taught, a point that has been at issue during the debate today.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said that children pick up their values from home. I was not sure whether he was saying that that is where they should pick them up. I make a plea here for that large and, sadly, growing number of young children who do not pick up their values from home and have no point of reference and no framework in which to pick up values other than at school. For many children schools are now the only anchor in their lives. It is an absolute responsibility of government to ensure that the framework within which children grow up is a moral framework. We must promote all that is good in a young person's life. It is not enough to say that it is a matter for parents. We have a responsibility as government, as schools and as teachers.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I would not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I did not wish to imply that I thought that all such education should take place in the home. I said that a good deal inevitably takes place in the home but that there is equally a responsibility on the school. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that clarification.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that only 6 per cent. of schools have a policy of not wishing to have sex education in schools. The figure may only be 6 per cent. of schools but that is more than 1,000 schools. In fact, I believe that the figure is almost 1,500 schools. That represents a large number of children. There is an inconsistency in those schools having a quite unequivocal view about sex education but finding that they have to have sex education as part of the science curriculum.
Reference was made to the Plymouth Brethren. I know very little about the Plymouth Brethren and so it is not for me to comment on their views, rather as my noble friend Lord Coleraine said himself. However, the view that, because they are a small group, their point of view is not valid is not one I share. Any point made by any Member of this House on behalf of one or more people is a valid point which we must respect in the way that we have learnt to respect in this House each other's points of view.
My noble friend Lord Brentford asked whether a teacher who is uncomfortable or has a conscience
1464
about teaching this as part of the curriculum can be made to. The answer in theory is that a teacher can be made to, but the practice is that in most schools ways are found by the head teacher and governors so that a teacher is not too compromised. But in theory the straight answer is that the teacher would have to teach the subject.
One problem that I have picked up as I listened to the debate tonight is not so much that children should not be taught the dangers of the disease HIV/AIDS, but what could be described as value-free education and the reluctance on the part of some of those charged with the responsibility to teach the subject to say what is moral or amoral, what is desirable or undesirable behaviour and what is right and what is wrong. I believe that parents and governors can do a great deal to redress such issues in their schools. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may return to the hypothetical question of a teacher who, on the grounds of conscience, refuses to teach the subject even though he is thought to be the most suitable person to do so by the governors and has been instructed to do so by the head teacher or the headmaster, as the case may be. If that teacher continued to refuse, what would his position be? Would he be subject to dismissal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall answer the question in two ways. In theory a teacher could be made to teach it in the way that a teacher can be made to teach any subject of the national curriculum. This part of the national curriculum theory is no different. However, what I am saying is that, in practice—and there is a distinction between the two—most schools will find a way to ensure that a teacher is not so compromised. If the answer is different from the one that I am now giving the noble Lord, clearly I shall have to write to him on the matter. I have taken advice during the course of the debate because I wished to clarify the matter. From the answer that I was given, my understanding is that, in theory, a teacher does not have the right of a conscience clause.
Perhaps I may deal with one final criticism; namely, that, somehow or other, the people who are concerned about the matter are either zealots or, as has been said, just small groups like the Plymouth Brethren. To counter that, I must pray in aid the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Stallard, Lord Robertson, my noble friends Lord Brentford, Lord Coleraine, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Liverpool, Lord Pearson and Lady Cox are not zealots and are not over the top. They have a concern which I believe probably can be addressed by increasing parents' awareness and by ensuring that the obligation to consider the moral and spiritual dimension of education is properly addressed in our schools.
I can assure noble Lords that I shall bring the views expressed in this debate to the attention of my right honourable friend. He will carefully consider whether, within the overall framework of our provisions for the curriculum, any further means may be found to meet

1465
the concerns expressed. I should like to conclude by repeating my hope that all parents will take full opportunity of their right of involvement in the development of the sex education policy of the governing body of their children's schools and ensure that their voice is heard.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, she attempted in her summing up to excuse her department's booklet, HIV & AIDS A Guide for the Education Service, by referring us to paragraphs 3 and 37. I have taken a little time to read those two paragraphs. I have to tell my noble friend that I do not see how one could read into those paragraphs any support for the moral position, or the values of family life, as envisaged by Section 46 of the 1986 Act. I mention that for her information, so that it goes on the record.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords,I shall verify the matter and, if I have given my noble friend an inappropriate answer, I shall write to him.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it only remains for me sincerely to thank all those who have spoken, from whatever viewpoint, in what has been an extremely interesting, comprehensive and instructive debate. One positive fact that emerged was the universal acceptance on both sides of the House of the seriousness of the HIV virus. That is a good sign.
Much as I would like to, it would be impossible to reply to many of the points which were raised due to the late hour and complexity of the subject. So I shall refrain from that, except perhaps to ask one or two questions of the noble Baroness who has replied. I should like to congratulate her on her reply and her contribution. I would not call it a summing-up. It was part summing-up and part contribution, and I thought her contribution where she let her own conscience deal with the points in question was better than the part which she read from the brief. However, that is just my opinion.
The Minister quite rightly stressed a number of times the moral framework of the 1986 Act. I am still not absolutely clear that she is saying that that applies to the science curriculum and that the statutory rights of parents, governors and teachers under the 1986 Act will now apply to the science curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say absolutely unequivocally that it does apply. Not only does it apply to sex education as it relates to HIV and AIDS within the science curriculum, but it applies to the whole of the national curriculum too.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, so there is the right then to appeal? If the statutory rights from the 1986 Sex Education Act apply, then there is the right to appeal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not want to confuse the noble Lord about appeal. There is the
1466
right to challenge if it is believed that teaching is not being done within a moral, spiritual and cultural framework.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I shall certainly examine that point very closely. It would be foolish to try to go into detail at this time of night and after such a long reply. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall scrutinise that reply extremely carefully and we shall probably have to come back to it at some other time.
The Minister did not mention the position of private and independent schools where children are equally at risk. How does the curriculum proposal affect them, or does it not? Does it not matter about those children? That will upset many people. But I still feel that the Minister was again making the same error in relying mainly on the 1986 Act and replying in relation to that Act. The Minister was using the 1986 Act almost in error to discuss the science curriculum. There is a difference and the Minister herself said there is a difference, but it is still not clear to most of us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, because this is such an important debate I think I should make myself clear. The 1986 Act states that sex education should be within a moral and spiritual framework. Within the context of the secular curriculum there is the right not to teach sex education at all. Governors can make the decision that it shall not be taught. Indeed 6 per cent. of schools have chosen to do that.
The moral and spiritual framework is carried through into the national curriculum. What is not carried through into the science curriculum is the right to choose whether sex education shall be taught. There is no choice as to whether it shall be taught; it must be taught.
Lord Stallard: All right, my Lords. We shall go into that even further when we look at this matter again. I was not introducing anything strange when I mentioned conscience clauses. This country, Government and Parliament, have a long and proud tradition of recognising people's consciences in all aspects of life, be it military service, health or the wearing of helmets, as referred to by one noble Lord, and there are various parts of the education Act where we already have these conscience clauses. I shall not be happy until I get a satisfactory reply and progress on the basis of applying and maintaining that. People may say that it is a dangerous precedent to allow teachers, parents and so on to opt out, but it is an equally dangerous precedent to prevent a conscience clause from operating in the crucial areas of social and educational life.
Those are the aspects that I shall be looking at when I re-read the debate as many times as I have to and then, it is to be hoped, come back to the noble Baroness with further questions and detailed correspondence. In the meantime I thank the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion to resolve, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past ten o'clock.