Lords Sitting of 24 June 1992

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

Charities: VAT Rating
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in protecting the interests of charities in the current discussions within the European Community on the future of value added tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, substantial progress has been made. Agreement has been reached that the United Kingdom's existing social zero rates, including those specifically designed to benefit charities and charity shops, can be maintained until at least 1997 without prejudice to their future thereafter.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that grave anxiety exists among many voluntary charity workers as to what will happen after 1997? For example, is he aware that it is the work of countless thousands of volunteers in charity shops which adds value to donated goods and that there is a danger of voluntary service being taxed? Can the Government give a categorical assurance that they will never allow that to happen?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in congratulating all voluntary workers for their work in charity shops throughout the country. As I said, I can give a categoric assurance up to the end of 1996. Thereafter, it is a matter for unanimous agreement by the member states. We have no intention of giving up the existing zero rates, particularly those applying to charities. We look to the best possible regime for charities existing both before and after 1997.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, did my noble friend suggest that unanimity would be needed to withdraw the concession? If so, why cannot the Government give an undertaking here and now that they will never agree to withdrawal?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct: unanimity is required. Obviously, I cannot speak for my right honourable friend or his successors and give an absolute categorical assurance that the provision will continue after 1997.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a most unsatisfactory position for him to take? And as he represents the Government, it is an unsatisfactory position for them to take. Is the Minister aware that most, if not all, in this House have been brought up to believe that the
436
only taxing authority in this country is the House of Commons? How is it that he can now equivocate about a tax which may be introduced in 1997 even though the other place may not want it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I made myself perfectly clear. I did not equivocate at all. I said that obviously I can give no categorical assurance, for exactly the same reason as the noble Lord has given—that is to say, it is a matter for my right honourable friend and the other place as to whether the zero rates should he given up. It is a matter for unanimous agreement by all the parties. We will not give it up, but at the moment I cannot give a categorical assurance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is essentially a matter in which Brussels should not be involved? Perhaps I may now ask a separate question. Can my noble friend confirm that our VAT rate is very much higher than that of other European countries?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the second part of my noble friend's question is another matter. I can give the assurance which I have already tried to give; namely, that until the end of 1996 our position is perfectly safe. We intend to preserve it thereafter, but obviously I cannot give a categorical assurance about what my right honourable friend or his successor might do post-1996.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better if he were to concede that the reason why he cannot give a categorical assurance is precisely that his right honourable friends are likely to compromise on all areas of VAT?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give a categorical assurance. Save for constitutional questions, I cannot speak for my right honourable friend and his successors in 1997. I do not want to equivocate. We are quite sure that we shall maintain the present position until 1997, and we wish to maintain it thereafter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in another place categorical assurances have already been given, which are not limited to 1997, as regards all the other categories covered by the sixth VAT directive?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Paymaster General has said in another place that there is no question of the United Kingdom being forced to accept unwelcome proposals to end zero rating after 1996. However, it obviously remains a question for my right honourable friend or his successor in 1997.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the other countries in the EC have a similar system of charities and voluntary bodies? Secondly, does he think that they understand how the charity and voluntary body system in this country works?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously charities exist in all countries of the European Community. What is

437
different is that charity shops are a peculiarly United Kingdom institution—or at least they exist to a far greater extent in the United Kingdom. It might therefore be that some of our colleagues in the Community do not understand adequately our problems.
Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in understanding that my noble kinsman's reply is based on the constitutionally impeccable principle that no Parliament can bind its successors?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that my noble kinsman is right.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that charities' VAT bills will treble if the zero-rating concession is abolished? Will he tell his Secretary of State that it is apparently the unanimous view of this House that it is unacceptable that this burden be placed upon charities? Will he come back and give us a categorical assurance that while this Government are in power they will not make such damaging compromises or concessions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, this Government will be in power for a considerable time to come. But, as I said, one Parliament cannot bind its successors. I have made our position perfectly clear. We wish to continue with zero-rating, particularly as it protects charity shops. We do not intend to see ourselves forced to accept any unwelcome proposals to end zero-rating after the date I mentioned. As I said, any decisions relating to that matter require the unanimous agreement of all member states.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that what is galling for volunteers up and down the country is that any concession on this issue will turn them into voluntary tax collectors? They give their service for those in need—not in order to become honorary tax collectors.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the premise behind the noble Lord's question. As I said, we intend to continue with zero-rating. We intend to continue the help that is offered in a variety of different ways to charities—and that, I think, is as far as I can take it.

CAP Reform: Publicity
2.45 p.m.
Lord Forester Lord Forester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that United Kingdom farmers are fully informed of the details and implications of the CAP reform settlement to enable them to plan their businesses for the coming year.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government appreciate that arable farmers, in particular, need to take decisions in the very near future, and some guidance has already been given. Details of the CAP reform agreement are,
438
however, still being finalised. The Government will provide full information to farmers as soon as it becomes available.
Lord Forester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I understand that the details that we require are only going to be debated on 30th June—let alone agreed—and that they come into force on 1st July. Is my noble friend aware that, although the European Parliament can stop the clock whenever it so wishes, British farmers cannot? The seasons roll on and nothing will stop them. In particular, will my noble friend ensure that British feed wheat is acceptable for intervention, because that is vital if we are not to have really unfair discrimination?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has highlighted a very important issue. It is now for the Commission to bring forward proposals setting quality standards for cereals under the new system. We have urged the Commission to produce this as soon as possible. We recognise that producers and traders need to know what quality of grain the prices will apply to and what quality of grain will be eligible for intervention before sowing begins in the autumn. We have made it very clear that feed wheat must continue to be eligible for intervention.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while making quite sure that the agricultural community knows the details of the new scheme, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself is aware and that the Directorate-General VI of the Commission is aware of the opinion of the Court of Auditors on 15th May last, which also sets out the possibilities and the probabilities of massive fraud when the new schemes come into operation?
Earl Howe: My Lords. I cannot speak for my right honourable friend as to whether or not he is aware of that, but I am sure that he is. We shall have an opportunity to debate the question of fraud in a few days' time.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, unless an immediate announcement is made to tell farmers what areas the regions will cover and to alter the stabiliser arrangements for cereals, more cereals will be grown next year than this year?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we shall determine the regions once the implementing regulations for set-aside have been adopted. I think that I understand the point that my noble friend is making. In terms of the rules for set-aside, penalty set-aside and reductions in area payments will be triggered if the claims for area payments cover a larger acreage than the regional base area, whatever that is deemed to be. It is open to farmers to move out of oilseeds and protein crops and into continuous wheats, but I doubt whether that will recommend itself to many farmers, especially as cereal prices will decline.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only arable farmers who need to

439
know, but also stock farmers? They are having great problems in knowing how many beef stock and how many sheep to carry because the base date from which the subsidies will be paid is not yet known.
Earl Howe: My Lords, at present the intention is to write to farming organisations giving details of the revised schemes for the beef regime. Quota allocations under the suckler cow premium scheme will be sent to individual producers. I am afraid that the timing on that is not yet certain. On sheep, detailed rules on quota allocations are still to be agreed in Brussels. However, we would hope to be in a position to advise producers of their provisional quota allocations, on the basis of their eligible ewe numbers in 1991, if possible by the autumn.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how the principle of "subsidiarisation", if that is the right word, applies to agriculture? Are we to be allowed to make our own regulations? Is he aware that I am informed that farm cheese made in Orkney cannot now be kept on wooden shelves? Shelves must be made of stainless steel. This, apparently, is a direction from Brussels. Surely this is the kind of matter which could be dealt with further down the democratic line, if it needs to be dealt with at all, rather than in Brussels.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in general, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, agreement has to be reached between member states and the rules implemented accordingly. There is some latitude in various areas. I am thinking particularly of the environmental provisions under set-aside where the rules will have to be tailored to meet each member state's particular circumstances.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, what proposals do the Government have for supervising the new regimes for cereals and the transferability of livestock quotas when the new regimes are in place for these commodities? Is it envisaged that the Home Grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission will be used as supervisors?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not think that we have reached a conclusion on that. If I can, I shall write to the noble Lord with an answer.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, may I press my noble friend to reply to a very important point of principle which was raised in the original Question? Is it not wholly unsatisfactory that the Council of Ministers, at the behest of the Commission, should approve important changes to any regime, whether it applies to agriculture or anything else, on the day before it comes into force? Is that not totally unreasonable for those who have to abide by it? Might not Her Majesty's Government use the period of the United Kingdom presidency to introduce a rule that at least two or four weeks should elapse between the agreement of any new proposals and their coming into force?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we lose no opportunity to tell the Commission of our most urgent concerns. We fully recognise that
440
farmers need to be able to plan ahead and we have been making available as much information as possible on the basis of our latest understanding. But in many respects we have to go at the pace the Commission dictates.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, one of the points of principle that farmers require to know is whether the Government are convinced that this will be a permanent system. In other words, will a deficiency payment making prices up to the level of this year continue forever?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot speak about for ever. What we are talking about is a regime that should last for a number of years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would the noble Earl like to reconsider his use of the word "dictates"?
Earl Howe: Perhaps, my Lords.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that reform of the CAP will be influenced by the outcome of the GATT talks, which have yet to be concluded?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the discussions on the reform of the CAP will have a bearing on the negotiations in the GATT. Only a part of what we are currently discussing relates to the GATT as a whole. Added impetus will be lent to the GATT negotiations as a result of the agreement we reached.

Student Grants
2.54 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans for raising student grants.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, under the arrangements which we introduced in 1990, the main rates of maintenance grant payable as part of mandatory awards have been frozen since 1st September 1991. Increases in students' resources have been made through the student loan facility and will continue to be made in the same way until the loan facility is equal to the value of the grant.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that, while general statistical evidence of student hardship is of necessity hard to come by, I have knowledge from my own college of Emmanuel of undergraduate and graduate students who are in severe difficulties at the present time? Will the Government have a look at the situation of student grants again, bearing in mind the drying up of vacation employment opportunities, the failure of a number of parents to make their contributions and the withdrawal of social security benefits?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have increased students' resources substantially. Full year support from grant and loan this summer will be nearly 40 per cent. higher than the grant alone in 1989–90. Access funds are also available for students in particular financial need. Many students do find summer jobs. A recent survey by the National Union of Students suggested that 65 per cent. of students found employment in the summer of 1991. They earned around £800 on average.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether it is still the case, as his right honourable friend Mr. Scott told me on 20th April 1990, that, taking into account housing costs, student incomes are below social security benefit levels?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, support for educational purposes is now rightly directed through the education programme, but housing benefit and income support are still available for certain students in vulnerable groups. These include disabled students and those with dependent children.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister said that some students may have special needs. How will that be certified; how will the students be informed; and what action will they have to take to have their special needs considered by the department?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, supplementary allowances are available as part of the mandatory grant to help older students, disabled students and those with dependants. These allowances continue to he uprated. For example, the Government have made full provision for disabled students. There are three allowances available as part of the mandatory award for disabled students. In the current academic year, 1991–92, they are: £4,240 for the year for a non-medical personal helper; £3,180 for the whole course for specialist equipment; and £1,060 for the year for other expenses relating to the course.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a considerable weight of carefully researched evidence of nationwide student hardship in 1991 was presented to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in the other place by the universities and polytechnics at the committee's request earlier this year? While the published proceedings show a most careful consideration being given by the committee to the representations made, we still await the committee's own report on this increasingly urgent issue. Is my noble friend further aware that the access funds, which are the only source of help available to students in serious difficulties, were increased by less than 0.5 per cent. in 1991–92; that is, not even by the rate of inflation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts of another place published before the election the evidence submitted to it on its inquiry into student support. I understand that the committee has not been reconstituted since the election. Whether it will in due course publish a report of its predecessor's findings is entirely a matter
442
for another place. The access funds are part of a generous package of student support, including grants and loans. The sums made available are what we judge to be sufficient having regard to factors such as the take-up of loans.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, are the Government aware of the incredible administrative costs of running the student loans scheme, now amounting to 25 per cent. of the total expenditure on the loans scheme? Does the noble Viscount agree that something ought to be done about these administrative costs? If they could be brought down, more money might be available to help those students who will undoubtedly suffer hardship in the summer vacation.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we believe that the loans system is simple, straightforward and cost-effective. It works.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to my noble friend for the careful answers that he has given to the detailed and difficult questions that have been raised. I should like to ask him a general question. Does he agree that, while students are in a privileged position in society, their contribution and vocation are essential to society's future well-being?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness David: My Lords, despite what the Minister said about the access funds, the student loan scheme and so on, is he aware that a great many students are ending their three or four-year period at a university or a polytechnic very badly in debt? For example, debts of £1,500 or more are very common. Further, does he believe that the banks are behaving responsibly in allowing students to run up such large overdrafts?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the answer to that question is that we have instituted the loan scheme which will provide a better source of finance for students than through commercially available bank overdrafts.

Skomer Marine Nature Reserve
3 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to investigate the source of the recent increase in siltation around the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve, and whether monitoring is being carried out on the dispersal of spoil from the designated dump site at the entrance to Milford Haven to ascertain whether this is causing the siltation.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Countryside Council for Wales, which is responsible for the management of the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve, has been monitoring the recent increase in siltation in the area. The council's investigations have established that the deposits are a combination of fine sand and

443
dead organic matter derived from seaweeds. No final conclusions have yet been reached about the cause of the damage. But there is no evidence to suggest that there is a link between the siltation around the reserve and the licensed dumping site at Milford Haven. However, the council is continuing to monitor the situation and is working closely with the National Rivers Authority to identify the cause. I understand that the water around the reserve has now cleared and that the damage will not have a lasting effect on the area.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that very encouraging Answer. However, does he agree that the problems at Skomer could have been avoided if we had had a system of integrated coastal-zone management which we have been pursuing for some time? Can the noble Viscount say whether any progress has been made in the Government's plans for such a scheme of integrated management?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that the Select Committee's report on environmental coastal-zone protection and planning is due in July.
Earl Peel: My Lords, notwithstanding the complexities of negotiating marine nature reserves, does my noble friend agree that there has been an attitude of "out of sight, out of mind" with regard to the conservation of nature reserves? Does he further agree that one of the major problems has been a lack of skilled divers with the necessary knowledge to implement the surveying and monitoring of such sites? If my noble friend accepts that view, will he please tell the House whether there are any plans to try to overcome the problem?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend can only be speaking about the United Kingdom as a whole. I say that because I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales usually has in the region 40 applicants each time it advertises for a scientific officer with diving qualifications. The council is able to ensure that those it employs on such work are highly trained in terms of diving skills and in the scientific observations they are required to undertake.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Wildlife and Countryside Act identified seven sites as suitable marine nature reserves in 1981? Is the noble Viscount aware that, so far, only Lundy and Skomer have been established and that both have had considerable difficulties? Can he tell the House what has gone wrong? What has blighted this excellent scheme? Further, when can we expect the next site on Anglesey to be set up? Will it be before or after the millennium?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I must refer the noble Lord to the answers given to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in January by my noble friend Lord Howe. However, I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales intends to issue a revised consultation document which, when formulated, will take account of some of the
444
representations made during the first consultation period. In setting up marine nature reserves, we have to take account of many vested interests. We are trying to square the proverbial circle. I hope that we shall receive some guidance on the matter when the Select Committee reports in July.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware—or can he recall—that on two previous occasions when the subject has been raised, Ministers said that if progress was not more rapid the procedures for designating MNRs would be streamlined so as to speed up the process? That was said in so many terms by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on 16th January 1986 and 18 months later, on 17th July 1987, by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Can the noble Viscount say whether procedures have been streamlined and, if not, why not?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I said, the procedures are by their nature consultative and must take in a wide range of divergent views. It has not been possible to streamline the procedures. I hope that the Select Committee's report will enable us to change the methodology.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be good enough to answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Morris; namely, when will action be taken in Anglesey? Is he aware that people there, including myself and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, are becoming increasingly impatient in view of the pledge made some years ago that action would be taken? The central question being put to the noble Viscount is: why the long delay? His explanation that the procedures take time is inadequate in view of the many years that have passed since the matter was first mooted.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we must await publication of the revised consultation document.

Parents' Responsibilities
3.8 p.m.
Lord Joseph Lord Joseph rose to call attention to the importance of the way parents bring up their children and to the case for voluntary bodies to provide help and friendship where the parents so wish; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my topic today is the quality of parenting. We rely upon parents to transmit the values and the self-discipline on which civilised society depends. I am not a Utopian and I know that there will always be some had parenting. But I want to consider the scope for increasing through voluntary services parenting that is, in a well-known phrase, "good enough." What is good enough parenting? It seems to be agreed that for children to mature into self-disciplined adults capable of loving and being loved and of showing consideration for others, they need from their parents

445
a consistent combination of love and discipline: unqualified love, but firm guidance on values and behaviour.
It has always been hard to be a good parent. It is harder now. Most people experience good enough parenting and, when they become parents, pass it on. However, a significant minority, for many reasons, do not enjoy that experience. Sometimes such people are unable to pass on good parenting themselves because of pressures, including the pressure of poverty. Income is not in itself decisive: resourcefulness is also crucial. There are certainly big problems in managing over a long period on a low income. Nevertheless, there are good parents with low incomes and bad parents with average and high incomes.
What can be done to increase parenting that is good enough? Government can do nothing directly, but Ministers should realise that their policies affect people as parents. Indeed, those policies indicate whether or not children are valued. But that is not the subject of today's Motion. What then can be done? Respect for parenting would help. Ministers can at least recognise the importance to society of good enough parenting. There are links at every level between parenting that is not good enough and family break-up, children demoralised or in care, crime, violence, addictions, low motivation and irresponsibility. What else can be done? We could stop disparaging marriage. Although no doubt some married couples provide bad parenting and some single parents provide excellent parenting, in general married households are preferable for the bringing up of children.
What further might be done? We could stop deceiving ourselves on some issues. For instance, it is not true that day care solves every problem. High quality day care may do good but it is very costly. Much day care is poor in quality and may harm the child's capacity to mature well. Whether mothers should earn outside the home is of course for parents to decide. But an increased earned income allowance transferable between husband and wife, as suggested by Nigel Lawson in 1988, would remove a penalty on families where the mother stays at home.
Is there anything else that might be done? We could stop thinking that we can have a civilised society without some stigma. What the neighbours say should matter and careless procreation is not something that should be accepted. It is irresponsible. Admittedly better understanding of the implications would help, and I shall turn to that later. But attitudes are not quickly reversed, even if in this House we were all to agree.
So what more within our own control might be done? Already families, friends, neighbours, churches and voluntary societies provide an immense range of services to help parents. The book entitled The Needs of Parents, published in 1984 and written by Gillian Pugh and Erica De'Ath, is, I am glad to say, being updated, with the help perhaps of the Gulbenkian Foundation. The great national children's charities—the National Children's Home, Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the NSPCC—focus by large
446
numbers of family centres and related activities on trying to rescue children from abuse and neglect and so far as they can to improve family functioning. These centres do immense good. It is unthinkable that their work should stop. There are, alas, more cases of need than they can meet.
But I want to review the scope for voluntary services to increase good enough parenting by a more general preparation for parenthood than is now available. Large categories are involved. There are parents who did not realise the implications of bringing a child into the world: girls who see childbirth as their only fulfilment, without realising the narrowed way of life, the exhaustion and the responsibilities involved; and young men who breed irresponsibly—some may be discouraged by the recent maintenance Act. Could not adolescents be made more generally aware, preferably by parents, but, if not, by their agreement with others, of the implications of pregnancy and the responsibilities of parenthood? Sex education tends to ignore relationships and responsibilities. It concentrates on the mechanics of avoiding pregnancy and disease. I know of the very recent National Children's Bureau project endorsed by Church and social bodies to deepen sex education by including relationships. I must confess that I flinched when Minister, from trying to introduce the subjects of relationships and responsibilities into state schools because of doubts about what would he taught, by whom and how effectively.
Perhaps voluntary bodies could seek to train and offer to school governors mature, understanding volunteers to discuss responsibilities with adolescents. There is interest among voluntary services; the YWCA, for instance, offers lone parent speakers to schools to urge teenagers not to embark upon parenthood as they did.
There are already many voluntary groups teaching or supporting teaching about relationships and about the emotional, moral and physical needs of children. I have a list. I hesitate to use it but I think that I had better, although I may leave out some contributing names. There is Save the Children, the National Family Trust, the Family Education Trust, the Catholic Children's Society, the National Childbirth Trust, Parent Network, Exploring Parenthood, Stepfamily, the Maternity Alliance, Schools Outreach and of course the work in and from family centres of the National Children's Home, the NSPCC, Barnardo's and the Children's Society. The Community Education Development Centre also has a range of training studies.
Those who are already parents can often find it hard to cope. Perhaps they never realised what an exhausting job it can be to look after even one child, even with a supportive husband, regular income and adequate housing. Without such a framework a household can be overwhelmed and enter with the baby or children into a spiral of demoralisation.
I suggest that the voluntary services should encourage yet further growth of efforts to spread good enough parenting by catching parenting that is not good enough very early on when it is just manifesting itself. Such efforts could help parents who need and

447
want help at home by offering one volunteer to one family befriending. That is precisely what Home-Start, founded by Margaret Harrison in Leicester in 1973, aims to do. There are now 114 branches of Home-Start in the United Kingdom providing help and friendship through nearly 4,000 volunteers to over 8,000 households containing about 20,000 children and their parents in the latest year. The volunteers are themselves parents, carefully selected and given a short training. These volunteers spend an average of about four hours a week in the family home. Each volunteer aims to become the resourceful friend of any family who so wishes, with at least one small child, often self-referred. The volunteers—I emphasise this—have no power and no authority. They can be thrown out by the parents at any time—but they seldom if ever are. They almost always leave the family better able to cope and to enjoy parenting. Some of the parents befriended themselves become Home-Start befrienders. There is a huge unsatisfied demand for Home-Start branches.
Branch costs—the organiser, training and expenses of volunteers—are paid by the local authority. Clearly no local authority is going to pay unless its own professionals find the branch effective. There is perhaps a special effectiveness in one volunteer to one family in the family's own home.
Then there is the Child Development Programme started by Dr. Walter Barker of Bristol University in 1979. That offers support even more widely, though much less intensively, than Home-Start, reaching some 20,000 families a year. Health visitors and experienced mothers, all specially trained, visit an allotted family at home for an hour a month. They encourage the parents to set themselves targets, praising them for the degree to which they take control of their own situation. Again the visitor can be kicked out by the family—but seldom is. Evaluation shows low abuse and better health in the families concerned. It is a double breakthrough that health visitors are involved. Their powers and those of social workers to take children into care mean that they are not normally always welcome. Moreover there are conflicting pressures within the health visiting profession, some urging, as I respectfully do, that health visitors should and others urging that they should not befriend parents in addition to their normal duties.
Smaller in scale but much more intensive is the work of the admirable family service units, attaching trained workers to families overwhelmed by problems. But there are few voluntary services offering the one-to-one continued befriending in the family's own home that Home-Start, the Child Development Programme and family service units provide. They need to expand as much as the maintenance of their standards allows, and perhaps others should study their methods. The splendid Pre-school Playgroups Association encourages parents to co-operate in providing play facilities all over the country, and that improves their parenting skills.
Allow me now to praise the donors: individuals, foundations, charities, companies and Ministers. They naturally want to know which family support services
448
tend to be effective. I am pleased to say that the Rowntree Foundation is keenly interested and is commissioning a study of family support options, with an agenda for research. It is self-apparent that preventive work, particularly befriending, must be some help to many families, whether or not research can isolate the befriending factor in order to prove it.
Assuming that not all help is effective, the saving in misery, mischief and public money, even from partial success, must be large, especially where volunteers are used. Voluntary services, however, need money—much money —from individuals, charities, foundations and companies; but it is in the taxpayer's interests that effective voluntary services should maintain and expand their activities. That is where the Government come in: to encourage cost-effective voluntary services, especially in the preventive field.
There is a deeper problem that may, as things are, bedevil the co-operation in family support between local authorities and voluntary services. Social service departments, as your Lordships are well aware, are overwhelmed with crises: resources are tight and new Children Act duties, plus public anxiety about child abuse, mean that social service departments, with the best will in the world, are likely to do little on the preventive side. Since the mechanics of funding voluntary work in the field, over and above charitable donations, lie in grants from social service departments, the preventive side of the voluntary sector seems doomed to underfunding. Few directors of social services will cut spending on their own staff to increase spending on voluntary services however cost-effective such preventive voluntary services might be.
What can be done? I wonder whether the precedent of the Housing Corporation might suggest a parallel in the family support field. Some public money could then be directed at crucial and effective preventive efforts.
The Motion expresses the hope that churches and voluntary services will seek even more ways to help the parents of today and tomorrow who need and want family support. Above all, the Motion recognises the blessing of good enough parenting and aims to encourage its further spread. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how much I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for introducing the debate. It provides a welcome opportunity to consider the ways in which not just voluntary organisations but public policy can and should support parents in the difficult task of bringing up children today. As I am sure the noble Lord will agree, all the voluntary organisations that he has listed are clear that without adequate social policies to support families their task is an impossible one.
To argue that we need properly thought out family policies is not to say that parents do not have the prime responsibility for bringing up their children. Of course they do. But it is the task of governments to

449
provide the conditions in which they can achieve that successfully. Unfortunately, for many parents they do not exist. They are struggling against a tide of poverty and deprivation which wears them down and induces a sense of hopelessness, sometimes amounting to despair. A few parents are neglectful and irresponsible. They are to be found in all social groups. But the vast majority want to do the best that they can for their children—to see them succeed and to see them turn out as well-adjusted and happy people who will in turn become good parents themselves. When they fail, it is often because all the cards are stacked against them. Their own lives are just too stressful and difficult to make them effective parents. No amount of guidance, advice or parental education will improve their children's chances in those circumstances.
Parents whose own self-image has been undermined by unemployment, poor housing and poverty will often be too preoccupied by their own difficulties to provide the best environment for their children. However, it is not just parents who are poor who require financial help in bringing up their children. The costs of rearing a child are much higher than many of us realise. The National Foster Care Association has calculated that the average direct cost of bringing up a child from birth to the age of 16 is £42,000. At the same time as coping with all the extra costs of being parents, the average couple's income goes down. The hours that they can work are reduced because of the lost opportunity for overtime and bonuses. Above all, they lose income because so many mothers either stop working altogether or reduce their hours of work. A further 1.8 million women would be in employment were it not for their child-care responsibilities. The opportunity costs, therefore, of having children are considerable.
In the light of those figures on the cost of having children and the effects on family income, is it not an absolute disgrace that child benefit—the one benefit that is specifically for children—has fallen by 18 per cent. in real terms since 1979 as a result of freezing it on a number of occasions? In the light of the figures, is it not right that there should be some horizontal redistribution from those of us without children, or whose children have grown up, to those with children? There is a great deal of talk about abolishing universal benefits, but that is one universal benefit which should not be abandoned if we want to help parents. One of the great advantages of child benefit is that it is universal and so is taken up by almost everyone who is eligible. That means that poor parents with large families will be helped automatically; but while the rates are so low, the help that they receive is inadequate. I shall say a few more words about child benefit when I refer to single parents.
Although I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said, that income is not the only factor affecting parenting, it must be a matter of great anxiety that there are approximately 3 million children in families living on or below income support levels. That is 25 per cent. of all children. Is it not a national scandal that a quarter of our children are living on the poverty line or below? In those circumstances, is it surprising
450
that parents have difficulties in caring adequately for their children? Should we not be ashamed that, according to the European figures, only Portugal has more people living in poverty than the UK? Should we not also be ashamed of the fact that within the European Community the rise in poverty in the first half of the 1980s was steepest in the UK? Nor has the situation improved since then. We must improve levels and take-up of family credit by poor working families if we are to reverse that trend.
The poorest group of people in our community is that of single parents with children. Those parents needing the most support are undoubtedly the ones coping alone with parenthood. While it is of course preferable for children to be brought up in families where both parents are present, many single parents make valiant efforts to succeed. In 1971, 8 per cent. of families with dependent children had lone parents; by 1987 the proportion had risen to 14 per cent., and in nine out of 10 of those families the mother was the lone parent. Widowhood accounts now for only a small proportion; marital breakdown is the main cause.
There are three main areas of policy where changes are needed to support single parents: child care, flexible working arrangements, child benefit and income support. Changes in policy in these areas are not just needed to ensure that mothers and children do not suffer from serious long-term deprivation following divorce; they are also needed to support all parents. Indeed, by reducing stress in families they may make eventual divorce less likely. In that sense they are an investment in family stability. Where divorce occurs, policy improvements in each of these areas will help to ensure that women in particular can cope better because they will be more independent and therefore more dependable with respect to their children.
First, we must do something about our lamentable record in the provision of child care. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord that child care must be of high quality. Only 2 per cent. of children under the age of three obtain publicly funded child care. In Denmark, 44 per cent. of children receive care; in France and Belgium it is between 20 and 25 per cent. Can the Minister say what kind of timetable the Government have for rectifying this?
For three and four year-olds the picture is somewhat better, with around 50 per cent. of children in the UK provided with publicly funded education or child care. However, again we lag behind our European partners. Lack of adequate care is the main reason for a relatively low level of employment among all mothers in Britain. Among lone mothers of children under five, only 7 per cent. are in full-time work, compared with 27 per cent. in Germany, between 44 and 49 per cent. in France, Belgium and Italy and 50 per cent. in Denmark. Unlike what is happening in the rest of Europe, the labour participation rate of single mothers in Britain actually fell in the 1980s.
Better child care facilities are needed for parents, but they will be especially helpful for lone parents. First, it will be easier for the mothers to work or to

451
obtain qualifications through education and training which will improve their job opportunities later. Secondly, it will allow them some time off from the relentless demands of small children 24 hours a day, which puts great pressure on parents who cannot share with their partners the daily task of meeting these demands. Thirdly, it improves the quality of mothers' lives by allowing them more contact with the adult world. As a result, they will be likely to be better parents. Lastly, by making it possible to work, it reduces their dependence on the state and/or their dependence on inadequate maintenance payments from the fathers of their children.
Having a full-time job and looking after children alone is not easy. Although it may suit some women, for many others it is nearly as stressful as the loneliness and isolation of caring for children alone. So we ought to allow all mothers to work shorter hours if they wish. But shorter working hours should not be accompanied by the existing disadvantages of part-time work—lower paid work, poor employment conditions and fringe benefits. We need new employment practices to integrate shorter hours and flexible working into employment patterns generally. We need to change employment law and the social security system.
The European Commission is taking a step forward in this respect through approving draft directives to give part-time workers the same access to vocational training, occupational services and benefits in cash and kind. Sadly, in the recent past the UK Government have not supported them. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Employment is on record as saying that he would fight them vigorously. Now that we have a woman in the post, perhaps we shall see a change of heart. All parents should also be entitled to leave for family reasons, for example, to care for a sick child. It should be available on the same basis as paid holidays.
Turning to cash payments, child benefit is particularly valuable for single parents. First, there is a premium for lone parents, although that could be higher. Secondly, child benefit continues to be paid when the parent takes a job, whereas means-tested income support is not. Therefore, it does not act as a disincentive to taking a job. The replacement of child benefit by means-tested benefits would increase the poverty trap, making it even more difficult for single parents to become self-supporting, which ought to be a policy goal. This is another reason why it is deeply regrettable that the Government have allowed the value of child benefit to decline.
Over two-thirds of single parents claim income support. Surviving on it means regrettably that they are living in poverty. One solution is to increase the benefits. That would help, but it is not a totally satisfactory solution. Moreover, it is unlikely that the benefits will ever be high enough for these families to live in comfort. The fundamental problem is that the lack of child care, labour market conditions and social security arrangements all combine to make it difficult for single parents to support themselves and their
452
children. Ways must be found to stop the social security system undermining work incentives and trapping lone parents in poverty.
If we attach importance to the way parents bring up their children, we must invest more in supporting all parents but especially lone parents in the way I have outlined. As I mentioned earlier, most of these parents are bringing up their children by themselves as a result of divorce and separation. Between one-third and two-fifths of marriages are now likely to end in divorce and 20 per cent. of children under 16 will witness the break up of their parents' marriage. During the 1970s, the divorce rate doubled so that during the 1980s approximately 150,000 couples were divorcing each year. Parents who are divorcing need help and advice on how to minimise the damaging effects it can have on their children. All couples contemplating divorce should have access to counselling and conciliation services so that they can, if they choose, get help to separate with a minimum of conflict.
The interests of children involved in separation and divorce, as well as the public expenditure incurred through family breakdown, fully justify public support for counselling and conciliation services. I hope that in replying the Minister will be able to say something about whether the Government will give more support to the organisations providing these services.
Support is also needed for those agencies advising on the difficult role of being step-parents. While remarriage can greatly improve the material circumstances of divorced parents, it can lead to conflict and stress as step-children and step-parents struggle to relate successfully to each other. Being a successful step-parent is as important as being a successful parent.
Let me now turn to the provision of education for parenthood and advice and guidance for parents about how to cope with the problems of child rearing.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I have not refrained from interrupting because the noble Baroness is going right outside the terms of the motion which concerned the voluntary services. We are hearing in effect a recapitulation of many pledges of the party opposite. I had hoped that we might discuss what could be done by the voluntary services to help parents who need it. I am not quarrelling with the noble Baroness on some of the substance of what she said, although I could easily controvert some of her remarks, but I think it was outside the Motion.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord. I began by saying that all the voluntary organisations which he had listed have said on countless occasions that they cannot operate unless public social services are adequate to support families with children. I am now laying out why those services need to be improved. I wish to go on to say a little about the voluntary organisations. I believe that what the noble Lord said is totally uncalled for and unjustified.
Both the statutory services and voluntary organisations have an important part to play as regards guidance and education. I have always been somewhat

453
sceptical about trying to provide much practical education for parenthood of a detailed kind for pupils at school. Young people seem likely to be more receptive when actually faced with parenthood themselves. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said earlier, what adolescents can benefit from is well-led discussions with other adults—whether teachers or youth leaders—about the huge demands of parenthood and the difficulties parents face. For example, getting them to understand both sides in conflicts with their own parents can be productive.
Preparation for parenthood should be provided for all parents expecting their first child. Antenatal care focusing on the health of mothers and babies is fine, but it is not enough. Fathers too must be prepared for being parents. Again this is an area where partnerships between professionals, voluntary support workers and parents themselves might be developed. However, volunteers need training in this area too if they are to be effective. Education and advice should not be cut off once the health visitor has made her last visit. All of us who have been parents have at one time or another got close to breaking point with a screaming baby in the middle of the night, a toddler who will not eat or a four year-old who will not sit down. As the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said, the work of voluntary organisations such as Home-Start and the family service unit is immensely valuable and perhaps could be extended with more funding.
One of the most interesting experiments in day-to-day support and advice to help parents is that provided by the Children's Society family and neighbourhood centres. The society rightly allows those who take part to decide on the facilities they need rather than imposing them from above.
All voluntary organisations are short of money and many of them have to spend disproportionate time and effort on fund raising. I hope the Minister will say whether the Government would consider giving more support to initiatives of the kind the Children's Society has started. The society can only run about 50 family and neighbourhood centres and there ought to be more.
Finally, the educational system has a role to play in helping parents. In training teachers we have perhaps focused a little too much on the children and not enough on their parents. Teachers must work in partnership with parents and support them where their children are facing learning difficulties or discipline problems. Teachers who specialise in pastoral work must be particularly sensitive to the vital part that parents play in the all-round performance of pupils. Sometimes teachers will need to refer parents to other agencies, but much useful support can be given through good pastoral work by teachers themselves. Again, however, in-service training is needed to enable teachers to develop the right skills.
The subject we are debating is wide. I have tried to focus, justifiably I think, on the importance of improving government policies that relate to the family. If those policies are taken seriously by the Government, more progress will be made in the way
454
parents bring up their children than can be achieved by any other change. It will also make it far easier for voluntary bodies to provide the help and friendship to which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred, as any of those organisations will be the first to say.
3.42 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first I owe an apology to the House. Until arriving in the Chamber, and indeed for a few moments after that, I was under what turns out to have been the mistaken impression that this was a two-and-a-half-hour timed debate to be followed by another. I have another longstanding engagement. Believing this to be a two-and-a-half-hour debate I had supposed that it did not matter that I have to leave at half past five. I considered that it would perhaps be unduly scrupulous to scratch my name from the list of speakers. As I have not done so, I beg the forgiveness of the House.
I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for introducing this topic. It is both far-reaching and important. I agree entirely with what he said about the importance of voluntary bodies. I agree with his comments because, among many other reasons, it can be absolutely vital for parents to have a certain amount of time off. I recall attending a function last year organised by Gateway to raise a scholarship in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—I believe the noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber—which was designed for precisely that purpose. That is the kind of thing we must all welcome.
I believe more generally that the noble Lord is on to something here. In 17th century political thought the family was regularly referred to as a little commonwealth. One may think that unduly literal, but it makes a point of some importance. A great many of our ideas about authority and about society are formed inside families. I learnt, for example, that it was possible to persuade authority by reason if one tried hard enough. I am not always certain that it was a good lesson. There is definitely something going wrong here. I am not sure what it is or why that should be.
I remember reading a passage in a work by Konrad Lorenz which stated that if one came from the country it was difficult to learn to walk down a crowded street without saying good morning. As it happened the day after reading that passage I was walking down Oxford Street. I observed a three year-old who believed that good manners demanded that he say good morning to every person he passed. His mother was becoming quite distracted. I am sure that the three year-old went home believing all grown-ups are hypocrites.
If there is one thing the noble Lord said with which I agree more profoundly than anything else, it is that it is difficult to be a good parent. It is also an area where, even when one has recognised a problem, one must accept that only a small part of that problem lies within the authority of the state. There is nothing more difficult than for the state to set out to change a culture. It does not have the authority to do so and it

455
does not have the means of penetration. There is a problem of changing arrangements of which the state may know nothing.
When I was in the States I recall reading a report in the New York Times which described one of those innumerable family behaviour surveys. The survey concerned dinner times. One teenage girl asked of the reporter, "Are you telling me that there are some families that sit down and eat together?". Clearly, that might cause concern; equally clearly, it is not the kind of thing we can easily set out to change by legislation. As my noble friend Lord Tordoff said to me, this matter seems to come under the principle of subsidiarity.
Expectations of the state have changed drastically in this area over the centuries. I recall reading a petition addressed to Archbishop Laud in 1640 from a man who asked the archbishop to mend his marriage. However eager the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry may be to help with such a problem, I am sure he would be forced to say in the end that therein the patient must minister to himself. We do not have the authority to do more than help in this area.
When dealing with children over 16 one has to say, like a group of 17th century deputy lieutenants, "We have a persuasive but no compulsive power." Just as it is easy to over-rate the power of the state, it is also easy to over-rate the power of parents. Reading reports from Malmö in recent times it is tempting to say that that marks a failure of discipline by parents. However, I recall reading a report after disturbances at the Chelsea ground a few years ago. The disturbances were televised. The mother of one of the hooligans observed what her son was doing. When he came home he found his bed outside in the street and the door of his home barred against him. One cannot say that that mother was unconcerned about disciplining her son but whether she did right or wrong is a much more difficult question. I shall not go into the matter now. Parental authority at that kind of age is in danger of becoming a nuclear deterrent which is effective only so long as it is not used. It is a great deal more difficult for parents than we sometimes make out, or so at least as a parent I like to think for I must declare an interest in that view.
I have read the Motion a good many times, and since the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I have read it again. It seems to me that the disjunctive "and" in the middle of the Motion allows us to talk both about the way parents bring up their children and about the importance of voluntary bodies. I hope that that is a correct reading of the Motion. When we consider what the state can do a great deal of that comes back to money because, although the people and the emotions may be the stones, in any family the money is to some extent the cement. I do not wish to make out that the cement is the most important aspect, but it is the part to which the state can most usefully contribute and therefore the part most usefully discussed in this House.
We have heard something of child benefit. On that subject we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and, although he has hidden
456
his light under a bushel, also to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph himself. I listened with great pleasure recently to Mr. Peter Lilley on "The World at One" reiterating the Government's commitment to child benefit. I listened with great amusement to his pleasure at being outflanked from the right by the honourable Member for Monklands East. I do not know whether the honourable Member for Monklands East will listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, but if he does not, I might look forward with equal amusement to a Labour government being outflanked from the left by the House of Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will find opposite numbers on the Labour Benches.
School meals are clearly something to which the state can contribute. They are a vital part of adequate diet, and adequate diet is an essential part of adequate social relations. There are a number of other very specific areas where the state can contribute. I agree on the whole, and in normal circumstances, with the argument that 16 and 17 year-olds are usually better off at home. However, there are cases of parents who are themselves on benefit throwing out 16 and 17 year-olds because, since they do not receive benefits, the parents cannot afford to keep them. There may be something useful which the state could do here. It could allow income support child premium to continue up to the age of 18 when the child acquires an entitlement in his or her own right. Those suggestions may be peripheral to the main problem but they are measures which we could take and therefore might be worth thinking about.
I am also glad that the noble Baroness raised the question of hours of work. Other things being equal, it is better for children to be brought up by two parents than by one, though speaking myself as one from a broken home, occasionally listening to what is said on the subject I understand why people with disabilities become sensitive to the way they are talked about. I am reminded of a remark made by Mr. Austin Mitchell, who I think I may quote verbatim since he was talking to the press and not in another place. He was asked at the beginning of the last summer Recess what he was going to do. He said that he looked forward to rediscovering the whereabouts of his constituency and the names of his children. With some allowance for effect, we all know what he was talking about.
There are here two contradictory trends. Especially in the public services, there is a trend towards lengthening hours of work, what the business section of one of the daily newspapers recently described as "macho" hours of work. At the same time there is a trend towards more and more employment of women. I welcome that trend warmly. I agree with Lord Palmerston's argument for Catholic emancipation: it is not expedient to exclude so many able persons from the public service. However, I wonder whether there are two contradictory trends and we need to consider which will give way.
In the past, in order for men to work the hours they have worked we have depended on the wife as an auxiliary worker, looking after her husband and getting him to work at the right time. When both work

457
there is a limit to the extent to which she can do that. To put it at its lowest dimension, there has to be someone there to let in the plumber. Therefore, if both parents are to know the children I wonder whether the Government might look with slightly more sympathy than hitherto on the 48 hour directive and whether they might consider slightly more carefully how far efficiency in the public services can go in the direction of longer hours.
I also wonder whether, in considering voluntary bodies, as in the noble Lord's argument, some account might be taken of the virtues of the tutorial system in universities. That system is, among a thousand other things, a form of use of voluntary bodies for picking up social problems. It saves public services a vast amount of time and work by acting as an early warning system. If we move to a mass production series of universities where there are no tutorials, I believe that there will be a loss in that area.
In preparing for the debate I have been reading a book by Jane Mattinson for the Tavistock Institute of Marital Studies, on the effect of unemployment on marriage. It seems that unemployment has a merciless knack of playing on the weak spots in a marriage. And every marriage, even the very strongest, has weak spots somewhere. I believe that the divorce rate for the unemployed is twice the national average. It was not the specific purpose of the study to deal with the bringing up of children, but in passing one picks up a number of cases which I suspect are typical of a great many more: an unemployed father, depressed and unable to face the task of caring for the children; a family referred for counselling because the child was caught stealing at school; a child in hospital because of feeding difficulties due to tension in the home; and a family referred for counselling because of the repeated booting out of a 19 year-old son. Those cases are probably the tip of the iceberg. There are other complications which show the existence of stress; for example, a rise of 20 per cent. in referrals to GPs. I shall not give more figures, but those are matters which must affect the atmosphere for children.
I have been arguing for some time that we should think more about the cost of unemployment. In the past I have put the argument in pure PSBR terms. However, I believe that the noble Lord's Motion has uncovered the fact that there is a wider dimension. There is the wider cost in terms of child upbringing.
We need to think about work, about part-time work, about pay for part-time work and about legal protection for part-time work. In all those fields the state could do something to make the very difficult job of bringing up children a little easier than it is.
3.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, we must all be greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for bringing to the fore a significant, indeed crucial, theme for our society, helping us to look at parenting and family life.
Tolstoy introduces one of the greatest of novels with the remark that:
458
"All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way".
Great is the variety of forms of family life in this country at present. While we in the Church may want to enable as many children as possible to grow up in a setting provided by a loving, stable marriage, we must do all we can to affirm and support parents in a whole variety of situations. We must strive to help those facing many kinds of difficulty, especially those who suffer the burdens of poverty and unemployment and those trapped in the cycle of disadvantage. They may feel particularly inadequate. They may have little secure love in their own background, brave as I have found many of them to be.
Increasingly we realise that at every level people need nothing less than a new kind of more supportive society. There cannot be just a narrow focus even on the nuclear family left on its own. How many of us as parents on our family holidays have found help and relief in having another family alongside or, if single people, having friends or relatives with us? I believe that we have here a hint of what a renewed Church could offer as a framework.
The Churches must welcome the discussion today because, alongside the many great voluntary agencies and networks to which reference has been made, the Churches have a special part to play and resources to bring to bear. The Board of Social Responsibility of the General Synod even now is embarking on what I hope will be a major study of the family. Churches have a vantage point: plant and people in every part of the country. The Church is well placed to help provide the network of support—a kind of extended family—that so many parents need. Its contribution must go beyond the traditional preparation of baptism, which for a small minority is still today forging relations between parents, clergy and lay visitors.
Church members and Christian agencies in growing numbers of places where the Church is coming alive are working to affirm parents, to help them know that they are performing a profoundly important task, to protect them from family breakdown before it threatens, to give them confidence in face of the pressures and temptations to which they and their children are increasingly exposed and to help those with poor experience of parenting in their own childhood to find new role models.
There are new initiatives in the Church. The Mothers' Union with its long tradition of promoting family life is breaking new ground. In all denominations there are many new Christian networks, as we have heard. In almost every diocese of our Church, FLAME (Family Life and Marriage Education) has been set up. Its work is spreading far beyond the confines of the Church, promoting community education in parenting, in marriage and in family life. FLAME is building confidence in parents, helping them to change and develop their skills. Its philosophy is to encourage "good enough" parenting so that parents can overcome that persecuting ideal which haunts us all.
Recently a conference in my own diocese was attended by a whole variety of parents. Gifted

459
speakers presented a basic parenting programme with an attractive handbook. There was an enthusiastic response. New local initiatives are now spreading across the whole area. Parishes, churches and schools will run courses. Parents were changed by the experience. They began to learn how to avoid being either dictatorial or permissive. They felt to some extent free from the guilt which haunts them. On their return they found themselves attracting friends and neighbours into a growing movement of parent meetings. All kinds of families are involved: single, separated, broken or mixed. They are discovering new ways of disciplining and responding responsibly to children in family meetings and other ways.
Today in the most disadvantaged areas, where the greatest poverty and pressure lie, local churches are trying to join in setting up the family centres of which we have heard, together with some of the great agencies, such as The Children's Society and Save the Children Fund as well as the Church Urban Fund and the local authority. I have visited family centres in Coventry which are working in partnership with parents, training local parents to be helpers, giving them new confidence in a place where it is quite a miracle that it happens, and offering space where hard pressed mothers and single parents can bring their children. In fact they are beginning to promote a new sense of what the community can do to support parents in the neighbourhood.
The work of Christian child care agencies, such as Barnardos, The Children's Society and the National Children's Home, is focusing increasingly not on institutions or taking children out of the community but on work with families in such neighbourhood centres. It is vital work and the need is vast. We are still only at the edge of it. It is so vital that it should expand.
In so many areas family life has broken down under the pressure of poverty. Churches are struggling to find an alternative family and alternative parenting for children who will be future parents. There have been some superb schemes of that kind in Coventry. I recall one called PACE where I saw young offenders being changed. It had a 70 per cent. success rate among the children who came to it. It was the local authority and The Children's Society who undertook that marvellous project together. It folded for lack of funds. To me that was a great tragedy.
There is now a new scheme, the Coventry Youth Challenge. It is rather like Home Start in some ways. It is based on a 15-day training programme for young people at risk. It helps them take responsibility for their own lives, make positive changes and take steps toward their own parenthood when it comes. The follow-up will be for one year, with regular meetings with a "committed partner", an adult volunteer. It is a venture of enormous potential but it will need more than voluntary or local funding.
The Churches and the voluntary agencies are at work in all those areas, working very creatively, as we heard. For them it is a period of hope and new activity. But they need government support. I believe that it is important that we should call upon Her Majesty's Government to work together with the
460
Churches and voluntary agencies to support those vital efforts with consistent, long-term funding. So much is at stake.
For our part, we in the Church must be more and more widely involved. This work has an obvious spiritual dimension. What could be closer to our essential message than helping parents and children to know that they are loved and accepted and so to become loving and accepting? What could be nearer to us than helping parents relate to children in a way that will make them more responsible, as I have seen so many schemes effectively doing at the present time? Those children in turn will become caring, responsible adults, playing a part in improving society, making the world a more just and peaceful place where more families—single people too, for that matter—can find not a variety of misery but the same essential happiness.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it gives me the greatest possible pleasure to speak at this stage of the debate because I shall be the first to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his most helpful and fortunate first speech in your Lordships' House. In fact he has darted in and out of my life rather like an orbiting comet. He first swam into my ken briefly at school as an absolutely normal person—of whom there are not too many at that age, as noble Lords have already remarked. He then disappeared on a kind of academic orbit, lecturing in Berlin, Cambridge and Nigeria, coming back to Cambridge as a Fellow and then as a head of college at Birmingham. He sprang into light again in my life as general secretary of the Church Missionary Society, for which I was briefly partly responsible. He disappeared again on an ecclesiastical orbit, first to Derby then to Coventry and now delightfully he is in this House. But even here he is a temporary illumination because under the rules of your Lordships' House when he retires he will only be elevated, as it were, just above the horizon in your Lordships' Dining Room and on the steps of the Throne. It is a great pleasure to congratulate him on a constructive, enlightened and welcome speech.
The Motion of my noble friend Lord Joseph—my noble and sensitive friend—suggests first that something may be wrong with the way in which parents bring up their children and secondly that there may be something that can be done about it. The fact that he tabled the Motion at all rightly emphasises that both those circumstances are of real relevance to the welfare of the nation. Had I had any doubts of it, they would have been firmly laid to rest when in 1988 I was asked by the then Secretary of State for Education to chair a committee of inquiry into discipline in schools. I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for returning so soon to that document. She had to deal with it only last week in another context and I had not expected her to be at the Box today. But it is relevant in this context too and, I regret to warn her, in many others, should she think of picking up other portfolios.
In our inquiry we found that the different ways in which parents brought up their children had a marked

461
effect on the behaviour of those children when they got to school. That was no surprise to us. But it was not an assumption we made; it was a fact which we adduced and found to be borne out by research. The most consistent correlation between pupil behaviour and family circumstance seemed clearly to be not with its material resources but with the style of parenthood. Where a family was suffering from poverty or other deprivation and there was an effect on the child's behaviour it frequently appeared to be not direct but as a result of the effect which it had on the parents, which was reflected in their treatment of the child.
It was also clear to us, as it was to my noble friend Lord Joseph, that families in similar difficult circumstances sometimes brought up children whose behaviour was perfectly satisfactory. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that that is not to dismiss claims that poverty bears hard on the family. It does, but it is far from the only factor. The questions of both upbringing and of school/parent relationships therefore became relevant to our inquiry. Since behaviour in school is in some ways not only a precursor but also a predictor of adult behaviour, I believe that it is relevant to this debate.
Research bears out the impression that children who present serious behaviour problems in school are likely to have experienced one of two extremes of treatment: either neglect or rejection, or a combination of both. It also shows that children's capacity to feel and show concern for others is influenced by the degree of concern shown by their parents to them. Research undertaken in the 1970s but still valid today indicates that the most violent boys were likely to be those whose parents' response to their behaviour was one of two extremes: it was either permissive or punitive. Permissiveness can be an expression of neglect, and severe or frequent physical punishment can be a token of rejection. I do not refer to the measured and considered chastisement that was more common in our own youth than that of our successors. I refer to children whose bad behaviour teachers told us they would not report because they knew it would result in a severe beating by parents to which the response would be further bad behaviour.
A large number of people wrote to us suggesting the reasons for bad parenting. Those people fell into roughly two groups—as I believe does the whole world. They are the tough and the tender. The tough believe that the parents of pupils who behave badly tend to be irresponsible, immoral and hostile to the values represented by the schools. The tender believe that parents tend to be so distressed by factors such as marital breakdown and poverty that they bring up emotionally disturbed children who behave badly in school as a result.
Both views contain some truth but neither contains the whole truth. The tough view rightly emphasises parental responsibility for bringing children up properly. However, it overestimates in most cases, but I now believe not in all cases, the conflict between the values respected by parents and upheld by schools and society at large. The tender view, in highlighting the
462
real problems of family stress, comes dangerously close to absolving parents from any responsibility for their children's behaviour by suggesting that some have become incapable of positive action.
Whatever the situation, the result is bad behaviour, often seriously bad, at school. That is a problem that one cannot just shut away in school and forget. Just as all children have to go to school, so all children have to grow up. When they grow up they carry what they have learned, and the behaviour that they have established as their norm, into society at large. The child is truly father to the man. If we can improve the behaviour of children we shall be a long way towards solving the problems of the adult society to which they will eventually belong.
Only a few of the skills of parenting are instinctive. The remainder have to be learned. Teaching children to relate co-operatively to adults and other children may in some part be instinctive. But self-respect, respect for others, concern for others, self-discipline, honesty and truthfulness have to be learned. Ideally those qualities should have been learned by their parents when they were themselves children. They should have been taught the same unchanging lessons by their parents. In the last analysis, it is that transmission of standards and values that determines the character of the nation. Its changes are marked as clearly in our history as our changing climate is marked in the growth rings of a forest tree.
Perhaps I may change the analogy. The transmission of standards is the golden chain on which not all but a very great deal of both our wealth and our worth depends. However, the child of a deprived teenage single mother is unlikely to have received those essential ingredients of her personality at her mother's inexperienced and wayward knee and will therefore be unable to pass them on if in particular, as is likely, she in her turn also becomes a teenage single mother. The golden chain has then snapped and unless someone steps in to mend it all her descendants will be deprived also.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Joseph that there is a role for voluntary agencies outside the schools. But surely it must be wrong in such an emergency—and it is an emergency for the child concerned—not to make use in every way available of the years in which young people are not only at their most formative stage but are perhaps for the only time in their lives part of a pastoral and tutorial system which is designed to give instruction and is capable of making good some of the instruction that their parents failed to give them.
Before I revert to voluntary agencies specifically, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me a momentary reference to what goes on in schools because it is all part of the matrix of behaviour and relationships which we now address. In writing our report, we tackled the issue at two levels. Our first recommendation was so obvious as to be banal, but to have left it out would have been an inexcusable omission. We urged parents simply to provide firm but affectionate guidance in the home and to ensure that they set a good and consistent example to their children. The key words are "firm but affectionate

463
guidance" and the key word omitted is "love". That is the basis of all emotional security in the family. Unlike affectionate guidance, it cannot be introduced at will when it is absent. Fortunately those who learn to give firm, affectionate guidance often find themselves providing love too as a result.
We also recommended that the Secretary of State should ensure that education for parenthood is fully covered as a cross-curricular theme in the national curriculum; and that governors and teachers should ensure that it is fully covered in the school personal and social educational programme outside the national curriculum. I sought to discover for myself what progress has been made on that front. The answers to my soundings have not been reassuring. The Professional Association of Teachers states that,
"the problem with schools at the moment is that there is pressure on curricular time created by the mandatory subjects in Key stage 3 and 4; this pressure is such that all the cross curricular themes are tending to be squeezed out because they are not protected by statutory orders in the same way as the mandatory subjects are".
The association acknowledges that the National Curriculum Council has issued guidance on the delivery of each of those themes but adds that,
"it is, after all, only guidance".
It also points out that it is not easy to decide exactly where preparing for parenthood fits among the five cross-curricular themes. Is it covered by health education or education for citizenship? Or, as the terminology seems to suggest, does it form part of the cross-curriculum dimension called personal and social development? Surely it must be wrong, as my noble friend said with some force, to hold, as some schools and some governing bodies apparently hold, that it is part of sex education and therefore outside the national curriculum altogether. For reasons that the noble Lord has already given, that seems to me wholly to misunderstand the subject and why there are some children to whom it must be taught.
My impression is of a wide divergence of practice, with some children in need very well served but many left out in the cold. I should be glad to have the Minister's view of the weight given to the subject, in cases of need, both as a cross-curricular theme and as part of non-curricular personal and social development work. If, as I suspect, the Minister has as yet only a subjective view, will she please ask the National Curriculum Council to ensure that at least one of its pilot projects monitoring the delivery of cross-curricular themes covers education for parenthood—and covers it thoroughly?
Schools can and do contribute a good deal to help parents in bringing up their children by taking parents into their confidence and making it possible for the authority of each to support the other. Schools can undertake that by effective induction arrangements for new parents and new pupils and by ensuring that parents are always fully informed of the school's behaviour policy and any changes to it. They can follow the course recommended by the National Association of Head Teachers and draw up home-school voluntary agreements. I received one such example from it last week.
464
Section 36 of the Children Act 1989 provides through education supervision orders an instrument whereby a member of the education welfare service can be brought into a special relationship with the child and his family who are in need of help. The national secretary of the Association of Chief Education Social Workers reminds us that, while most of your Lordships used to consider your home as a refuge from your school if one were needed—and for some it was—for some children today school is a real refuge from home. In those circumstances the present base of education social workers or education welfare workers outside school with the LEA makes them usefully distinct from school staff and therefore sometimes better able to mediate between home and school, thus offering the support for parents that my noble friend so eloquently asked for from voluntary organisations. I hope that as the delegation of budgets to schools under the Education Reform Act proceeds the department will monitor that status and protect it so that those important workers can continue to act as friends and advocates to the family and not be seen just as enforcement or attendance officers in disguise. The association is training people for that purpose.
My noble friend drew attention in particular to the need for voluntary associations to help parents in bringing up their children. I have tried to show that those difficulties show themselves in school and can, in some part, be tackled either by the school itself or by the local education authority in association with it. But, like my noble friend, I am convinced that the voluntary sector has a great deal to offer and is actually stronger than any statutory provision because it is separate from the official hierarchy of authority. That is often seen as the enemy of the family, however benevolent its approach may be. How useful it would be if there were a voluntary organisation which had both that distinction and the full use of a school's resources.
One of the bodies mentioned by my noble friend falls exactly into that role. It is the organisation known as Schools Outreach. I am well fitted to commend it because I confess that when Gordon Bailey first sought to involve me I was doubtful whether he could deliver. I am now entirely convinced that he can.
Schools Outreach operates by training workers to go into schools not as teachers but as friends to the pupils. They are adults. They are enormously helpful to the staff and enormously supportive to the children. They involve themselves with the children's families and parents when that is called for. A preliminary step is often to give a difficult child its first, recent confidence-building experience of a good relationship with an adult. That can be the first and most difficult step towards re-establishing the good relationship at home for which we are working. In the words of one of the organisation's supporters, when at home children are not being given the moral standards, ethics and social behaviour that they need. But Schools Outreach workers take those standards into the schools and show the children how to care and to be compassionate. They repair the link with the home and the parents.

465
My growing experience of young people in trouble bears out my noble friend's analysis. It has taught me a most important lesson; that behind many of the sorry stories that lead young people into crime and into custody there has been the starvation of love from the beginning. Love goes by different names as we grow older. In our teens, unless it is focused on a girl friend, we prefer to call it "caring". The intervention of caring adults is a vital ingredient in rescuing young people from all the waste and sorrow that delinquency and criminality bring in their wake. That can be done in schools and parents can be assisted by the three means which I have suggested. Alternatively, it can be provided outside the school in the form of intermediate treatment. That subject, however, is for the next debate in which I look forward to participating and hearing in reply another noble friend at the Dispatch Box. It is appropriate that this debate should be dealing with a subject which, if it fails, will be picked up in the next. The children who lose from the failure of parenting fall into delinquency, criminality and custody and eventually their lives are ruined. That is the extent of the importance of the subject which my noble friend has raised.
I conclude with a commonplace but important observation. If my generation had been as diligent in teaching the Gospel and Christian precepts as was my father's in teaching ours, and if it had been as supportive of our churches and chapels —and, I dare say, our synagogues—I believe that many of the ills that we have discussed would not have befallen us and that many of the children whom we have discussed would now be in a better state than they are. I hope that that lesson will not be lost on our successors and that those of your Lordships who share that view will share also in the work of putting it across.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Elton in thanking the right reverend Prelate for his maiden speech. Later I shall tell a short story to illustrate what he said. I also thank my noble friend Lord Joseph for introducing the debate. I well remember that when he was Secretary of State for Social Services he made a notable speech on the cycle of deprivation. Its contents were true then and they are true today.
Your Lordships may ask what right I have to speak in the debate because I am not a parent. I have not had children. About 10 years ago the Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, as it was then called, wrote to me asking whether I, as "one of them", would attend its conference at Butlin's camp. I was appalled and wondered what the tabloid press would make of the suggestion. I wrote to say that I was not "one of them" but that I would attend the conference. The council wrote back: "You are one of us because you are a children's officer and you have 300 children". I thought that I must be a biological wonder and that I had gone up in the world.
466
I wish to begin by dealing with the structure of the voluntary sector. Without a good structure the voluntary sector cannot operate. My noble friend's Motion asks us to consider,
"the case for voluntary bodies to provide help and friendship where the parents so wish".
My noble friend recognised in his speech that the voluntary sector must work in co-operation and in partnership with the statutory sector—that is, education, social services and health—and with the ministries and the government. Therefore, the combination must be tripartite.
I turn to the most distasteful subject of coinage, finance and money. As the right reverend Prelate said, the people of this country are extremely generous to voluntary organisations. In our debates on the Charities Bill we heard that an increasing amount of money is given to charities in this country. We also heard that many more charities are being formed to meet the needs which now exist. We face a dilemma because charities cannot operate only on gifts from the public, generous though the public are. Therefore, if the work of the voluntary organisations is to be sustained and is to continue the government and the local authorities must support them financially.
A number of local authorities and government departments make grants to voluntary organisations. However, the way in which they do so makes the running of those organisations extremely difficult. Local authorities must prepare their estimates between September and April. That applies also to the voluntary organisations but they are not told until April what grants will be made to them by government departments or by local authorities. Therefore, the voluntary organisations are uncertain about whether the staff will be able to carry on. I suggest that the Government and local authorities should provide core funding for the voluntary organisations which they support. The organisations would then know that they could keep their staff and could continue in operation. Of course, extra financial help from the government would be most welcome.
We cannot talk about voluntary organisations unless we talk about how they are run, the money that they have, the way in which it is given and the method by which it is administered. I am sorry that that is a rather uninteresting introduction to my speech.
I deal now with people working in voluntary organisations. A little while ago I spent some time with the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association. That association has a large number of volunteers, many of whom are the wives of servicemen. When I spoke to the volunteers they said that the volunteers must know what they are doing and must be trained. That struck a chord with me. I do not suggest that volunteers should go to university or should undertake a two or three year course, but I believe that it is dangerous if volunteers working in voluntary organisations do not know exactly what they are doing. To some extent, they must be helped.
Also, many more local authorities could use volunteers. I know that that is not using a voluntary organisation. However, when I was the director of social services in Oxford I asked for more social work

467
staff and was told, perhaps quite rightly although I was sad about it at the time, that the authority did not have the money and I could not have more staff. I had to accept that situation, but the work had to be done. There was not at that time, as there is now, a voluntary organisation to do the work. Therefore, I appealed for volunteers. We provided a course for volunteers at the local college of further education and we used volunteers under the supervision of trained staff to help to do the work within the department. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said as regards Schools Outreach, it is possible, within the orbit of statutory organisations, to use volunteers. That is slightly off the point of this debate but I felt that it should be mentioned.
Volunteers have a duty to learn about their subject and to know what they are doing. For example, the honourable Mrs. Sieff has started a course for volunteers in both voluntary organisations and the statutory services. Of course, there is the Volunteer Centre which gives training and help to volunteers in both sectors. I am convinced that if volunteers are to give help, they must know about their subject.
On that point, I should say to the right reverend Prelate how important it is that we should know what we are teaching. I remember well that two small boys ran away from a home and the police were out looking for them. I had given those boys a very careful talk about how God was within them and was within all of us. Alas, that did not work. Obviously I did not know my subject properly because when ultimately they were found I stood outside their bedroom door and heard one little boy saying, "Oh dear, she said that God was within us". The other little boy said, "Well, that's all right. God ran away tonight and not us". Therefore, I failed. It is important—and I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will agree—that if, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, we are to try to hand on our Christian principles we should hand them on in the right way and not, as I did, in the wrong way.
I agree with my friend, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as regards the wording of the Motion, part of which states:
"bring up their children and to the case for voluntary bodies to provide help and friendship".
If we are to do that we must have not only the structure, the money, the will and the skill but we must also know what it is we are providing for and where the greatest need lies.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Joseph that there are many women today who need and want help; indeed, many of them are seeking help. Like my noble friend Lord Joseph, I wish to mention various organisations. I have been particularly impressed by an organisation called New Pin. That seeks to improve the mental health of parents, preventing emotional and physical hurt to children. That organisation has six centres and is hoping to have many more; but there is a problem as regards finance.
All the voluntary organisations that I had intended to mention have already been referred to and therefore I shall not now do so. However, I believe also that we should be very careful about what we are doing. There
468
needs to be a certain amount of research carried out in this whole area as to where the needs lie, where the gaps are and how the problems are to he dealt with.
These days increasing demands are made on parents. How are those to be met? We need to know the relationship between parents and within their families. Everybody has the right to choose. Some parents choose to go to the statutory organisations for help but some parents do not wish to do that; neither do they wish to seek help from the voluntary organisations. There is an organisation called Parents Anonymous. A number of parents got together and set up an organisation. I congratulate those parents. They run jumble sales to raise money to pay the telephone bills. They arrange for parents to ring each other if they feel that they cannot stand life any more. That has nothing to do with anybody other than the parents themselves. Such organisations should be supported.
There are many various and outstanding organisations today, to which my noble friend Lord Joseph referred. Those organisations should be supported. There should be training and a proper structure by which they are supported. Parents should look after themselves if they so wish but they should know where they can go if they need help.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has brought forward this subject today. He does our children a service by proposing this debate on the importance of how parents bring up their children and ways in which the voluntary sector can help them.
The way the law defines parents' relationships with their children is fundamental. Under the Children Act, in England and Wales we have moved some way in the right direction; that is, away from old concepts of parental ownership of children and towards the concept of parental responsibilities. That is surely central to this debate.
Regrettably, in my view, the Children Act does nothing to define the responsibilities of parents; but a month ago the Scottish Law Commission published proposals of reform of the relevant law in Scotland in its Report on Family Law. I believe that the commission's proposals are worthy of proper consideration south of the Border, too.
The commission suggests that parents' responsibilities should be defined and should include:
"safeguarding and promoting the child's health, development and welfare"
and providing
"in a manner appropriate to the child's stage of development, direction and guidance to the child".
More radically, the commission proposes that those with parental responsibility should have a legal duty to consult their children about major decisions and take seriously their views. It is right and proper that children should be heard and taken seriously. Incidentally, the proposal does no more than implement the principle in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which

469
the Government ratified last December. While our Children Act extends the principle of consulting children, it does not extend to parents.
But the Law Commission also confronts bravely an issue which is absolutely central to improving the status of children and at the same time reducing the level of violence in society—aims which are surely common to all of us. It is the issue of parents' current rights to hit their children —that is, physical punishment. Here the commission proposes new limits for the criminal law: hitting children with implements or in a way which causes or could cause injury, or pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time, would, if the proposals are implemented, become a criminal offence. Incidentally, in its report the commission reveals the results of an opinion poll which show that an overwhelming majority of the public—over 90 per cent.—favour banning these forms of punishment. It is high time that the Government took a lead on this issue and gave parents a clear message which they have already given foster carers and child minders; namely, that physical punishment is counter-productive and a dangerous way of child-rearing.
Three years ago the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and I helped to launch a campaign—at that time a lone voice—called EPOCH, which stands for End Physical Punishment of Children. We are no longer a lone voice. EPOCH's campaign for education and legal reform to end all physical punishment of children is now supported by most major child welfare and protection organisations including the NSPCC, the National Children's Home, the National Children's Bureau, Save The Children, the Health Visitors' Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the community paediatricians and about 30 others.
Early last year the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I met, on behalf of EPOCH, Ministers from the Department of Health (Mrs. Bottomley) and the Home Office (Mr. John Patten). It is quite unusual to get Ministers from these two departments into one room to talk about children. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], will agree because I know that she has tried to do that quite often. While the Department of Health has lead responsibility for children, the Home Office has responsibility for the criminal law on cruelty and assault.
After this meeting, EPOCH received a letter from Mrs. Bottomley, now the Secretary of State for Health. It confirmed that her department had, through the Children Act regulations and guidance, implemented its policy that, outside the home, physical punishment has no place in the child care environment. But more significantly, I am glad to say, the Minister added that she was sympathetic,
"to the case for doing more to change the culture".
Mrs. Bottomley meant our current culture which, like the law, does nothing to deter parents from using physical punishment.
470
But now we have the Scottish Law Commission's proposals. In its report the commission emphasises that it,
"accepts and regards as important, the arguments to the effect that physical punishments tend to escalate in severity, that parents using physical force may inadvertently cause damage, and that much abuse starts as ordinary punishment".
The arguments are overwhelming and based in long-term research findings, well-documented by EPOCH and acknowledged by the commission. If we want to produce self-disciplined children and reduce the level of violence in society we must give parents a clear limit.
I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to a pamphlet published in 1989 called The Extent of Physical Punishment in the UK. It describes the research of John and Elizabeth Newson. They conducted a long-term survey (starting in 1952) of child-rearing practices. They studied 700 families and interviewed mothers in their own homes as children reached their first, fourth, seventh, 11th and 16th birthdays. Two hundred families were followed up when the children were 19 years of age. In 1958 they found that 62 per cent. of mothers used physical punishment to discipline their one year-old babies. In the light of recent media attention which has raised public awareness about the physical abuse of children, changes might be expected, but in 1985 they found that 63 per cent. of mothers smacked their one year-olds. This is a random sample of 344 families.
The Newsons found a strong link between children's early experience and how they turned out. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has observed the link between physical punishment and later violence. The children who suffer physical punishment are much more likely to become troublesome at school; to truant; to become delinquent; and quite a high proportion achieve a criminal record.
In his pamphlet The Importance of Parenting, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, says:
"Parenting that is not good enough can lead to misery for the children, and, as they grow up, failure at school, crime, violence, disregard for others and unhappiness for themselves".
I suggest that physical punishment by parents undoubtedly contributes to that.
The Scottish Law Commission's proposals for the criminal law are probably right, providing a real deterrent for those who still beat children with implements or cause injury. But we in EPOCH, backed by a very powerful coalition of child welfare and professional organisations, believe that in addition family law is the right place for a clear statement that no physical punishment is acceptable.
The time has come to replace the outdated and potentially dangerous parental right of reasonable chastisement with parents' responsibility to guide and control their children. Since 1979 five European countries—Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Austria—have passed laws banning all physical punishment of children. In Germany a draft Bill is under consideration. Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child insists that states must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, educational and social action to protect children from,

471
"all forms of mental and physical violence"
when in the care of parents and others.
The first step towards changing the current culture of British parenting, which all too often relies on smacking or beating, is for the Government to give a lead and to use appropriate channels quite explicitly to discourage all physical punishment. In just two-and-a-half years EPOCH has circulated more than 600,000 leaflets giving advice to parents and other carers on avoiding smacking. I am glad to say that there is a huge demand. Surely that is the sort of voluntary initiative which should now receive government support.
The influence of parents on their children is, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, so rightly emphasised, central and crucial. We believe that the time has come to emphasise parental responsibility, including the responsibility to use positive and non-violent ways of encouraging the sort of behaviour we all want from our children.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke about the findings of the Scottish Law Commission. In preparing for this debate I had it in mind to speak about that, but I am glad that I did not plan to do so because the noble Baroness has done it very much better than I could have done. I agree with every word that she said.
In Parliament there is frequent discussion of many matters concerning children and young people. Much time is spent considering that which is governed by legislation; namely, schooling, the health service, social services, children and parental rights and responsibilities and how children are dealt with when they break the law. As noble Lords will remember well, the Children Act was a major item in the parliamentary timetable. Yet, very curiously, we seldom turn our minds to the subject under discussion this afternoon, which is the part of children's lives that is at the very heart of all their needs. I refer to the kind of upbringing which their parents provide; the atmosphere, behaviour and relationships that children experience at home and the help which parents can enlist, apart from the statutory services, in this most demanding of all tasks.
It is all too easy to assume that, because the way in which parents bring up their children is to a great extent a private matter for them, it need not be taken into account in the formulation of public policy. That is clearly a mistaken point of view. Home is by far the strongest influence on every child. If parents do not succeed in their role it is doubly difficult for any statutory service to help. It is clearly in the public interest, as well as in the interests of children, that parents should have available to them as much information and advice as possible and in a form that they can accept and use.
One does not have to look far to see how important home influence is. A number of noble Lords have already given examples. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the findings of a report on school discipline. International research suggests that the
472
home is by far the most significant factor on a child's general performance at school. A report in the early 1980s from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development looked at schools in 24 countries. It concluded that no matter where in the world a child lived—in Africa, Europe, Australia, the Far East or the United States of America—no matter what size or type of school the child attended—comprehensive, selective, state-funded or privately funded—and no matter what the income or social status of the child's parents, the main determining factor on that child's performance at school was the parents' attitude and commitment to the child's education, their interest in the school, their backing for the school in the eyes of the child, their insistence that homework mattered and their interest in all the child's school activities. It seems that all over the world the biggest influence of all on a child's performance is the home. One often wonders whether parents appreciate enough how much their backing of their child's schooling matters. Do schools make the point sufficiently clearly to parents? Do schools give them genuine opportunities to play their proper part?
Likewise, anyone who is involved with young people who come before the courts knows how close the link is between what is happening at home and a young person's behaviour away from home. So often, the beginning of a young person's trouble with the law turns out to have coincided almost to the day with the son or daughter realising that his or her mother was very ill with cancer, or when the father went to prison, or when a parent died, or when the parents' marriage split up. Do parents appreciate the effect that their misfortune and their behaviour may have on their child? Do they realise that there is much that they can do to lessen a child's anxiety and pain?
How much children's health is affected by their home upbringing is obvious. It is not just a question of the quality of the food that they eat or of the amount of sleep that they get, but of the general atmosphere of family life. There is a big increase, for example, in childhood asthma and in related chest and skin problems at present. Asthma is often linked to anxiety and nervous tension. Do parents realise that? Do they know what they can do about it?
This Government aim to work towards a framework within which there is more opportunity for everybody from every walk of life. That must, above all, mean opportunities for every child. Surely part of the strategy must be to provide an opportunity for parents, and for young people who will in future be parents, to learn about and understand their role, particularly during the first four years of a child's life when so much of a person's personality and potential is determined.
Perhaps I may suggest one or two ways in which the Government could move forward with this. It seems to me that there needs to be more concise and clear information for parents about the help that they can seek. A variety of publications is available to them—although it is only a limited variety. A good example is a leaflet that has been produced by the National Consumer Council, together with the Scottish Child and Family Alliance (SCAFA) and the

473
Voluntary Organisations Liaison Council for Under Fives, entitled Choosing Childcare. It sets out very simply the various options that parents have in seeking help with their under-fives and the various pros and cons. Perhaps the Government will consider holding a meeting with the voluntary organisations which work with young people to put the problem to them and to discover whether they could in some way combine to produce literature for parents, and for young people who will become parents, to inform them about the help that is available.
The Government could seek an extension of the approach to parents that is taken by the Pre-School Playgroups Association. Its trained playgroup leaders give very strong encouragement to the parents of under-fives. Some insist that parents who are able to do so become involved in running the groups. The playgroup associations are as much an education for parents as for children, and it works extremely well. The Government have endorsed this work recently by nearly doubling the association's grant for training leaders and for tutors.
I wonder whether we should try to persuade nursery schools to take a leaf out of the playgroup book. Nursery schools involve some parents, but should not far more be involved—and be involved more deeply—with the deliberate aim of helping the parents to learn, as well as the children? Just inviting parents to special events or seeing them as escorts or, in some cases, as chauffeurs for their children fails the parents and thus fails the children. Should not all nursery schools widen their aims by deliberately offering hands-on learning opportunities for parents?
For some time the Open University has been designing and producing packages on which local community educators can base courses for parents on the subject of how to bring up small children. These courses have been taken up by a number of local authorities and, I believe, by some churches. They are a great success. It is an eye-opening experience to present certificates—as I have done in Glasgow—to parents who have completed such a course and to discover how thrilled several hundred parents can be—a number of them Moslem women—with the knowledge that they have gained, and to discover how many hope to continue with further courses. This kind of work could well be extended. The Government could give encouragement in some form to universities, colleges and local authorities on this matter.
My last point, which has been touched on by other noble Lords, is that I wonder whether colleges and the upper end of schools should not be doing far more about teaching young people and existing parents about the skills of parenthood. Young people need to know just what they are taking on when they decide to have children. They need to know the implications of the relevant up-to-date statistics. They need to know that, according to the 1989 household survey, if they live together before marriage—as is so often the habit nowadays—they are increasing by some 60 per cent. the chance that their marriage will break up within 15 years compared with couples who have not lived
474
together before marriage. Young people need to know that. They make their own choices, but they need to know such things when making their choice.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, couples need to know something of the difference that the break-up of a marriage makes for children and how the children's problems can be alleviated. Are the Government confident, I wonder, that schools and colleges are dealing with this problem adequately?
In this country, and particularly in Parliament, we must not let ourselves off the hook by telling ourselves that the upbringing of children is the parents' private affair and that therefore it is not for us. Home upbringing is a large part of children's future. We owe it to them to do everything we can to help parents and future parents understand and develop the skills they need. I hope that we are doing enough. I am not quite sure.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we live in an age when 25 per cent. of youth are from one-parent families and crime, lack of respect for others and sadistic violence are endemic. Something has gone very wrong not just in this country but all over the world. It must go back to conditions of upbringing when young.
Many families grow up in great deprivation and poverty, and no more so than the unemployed single parent families. These mothers are in a trap, for, even if they have a skill to sell, they have to stay with their young, and certainly cannot afford the cost of putting their young into a creche each day. Action could he taken—and is urgently needed —to help them by the provision of free crèches and nursery care so that a young mother can get training, a job, earn a wage and get herself off benefit.
Control of diet and budget is often very poor with single young mothers. These leads to health and financial problems, in an ever descending spiral of despair. They reach for the fast foods and tinned vegetables, paying high prices out of a small income for non-fresh foods. One youngster was amazed to see peas coming out of a pod. Smoking is an obvious example of money being ill spent. One young girl recently admitted in court that she spent half her benefit on cigarettes.
I have no doubt that voluntary bodies give a lot of help in these areas. But many children grow up in families which are relatively affluent and which feel that their children should not have to suffer the lack of things that the fond parents wanted in vain in their young days. So the children are given lots of pocket money—in fact too much pocket money. They are even given small motorcycles and all that money can buy. How nice for them. But they surely must grow up with expectations far above their attainment, and are most likely to price themselves out of the job market when they are older. Further, with money to spend and bored from over indulgence, they are sitting ducks for the drug pusher.
I cannot see that any youngster has a hope of growing up with any semblance of manners, ethics or gentle behaviour, after seeing what they see on television. It is an enormous tribute to the parents and

475
schools that so many in fact manage to do so. During the early evening children are subjected to bad language and uncouth behaviour by their heroes, while the really nasty programmes are kept for later at night. But in reality, many children stay up far into the night and watch all those programmes that are utterly unsuitable for teenagers and grown-ups, let alone children.
At a mature age these programmes may do no harm, but I dread to think what some of them must do to weak and impressionable young minds. I say "weak" because many minds are not weak and can cope without being seriously damaged. But it is the weak minds that are persuaded to drift off into anti-social behaviour. There are plenty of examples where copycat crimes have been committed after seeing them on television.
Swearing is now commonplace on television. Young children now swear at an early age, with "fs" and "bs", and sexual swearing is creeping in as a result of what they have heard on television. Television companies claim that advertising "Snibbo" makes people buy "Snibbo". Then they claim that advertising sex and sadism does not promote sex and sadism. If we excite young and not so young people's minds with sex, what do we think they will want to go and do? Will they want to go and play dominoes? Surely the hyping up sexually of people must contribute to a lowering of standards and increase under-age pregnancy. Girls are now having sex at a very early age—down to 13 or less in some awful cases. They are probably daughters of very young mothers themselves. There is pressure by boys that goes back to Adam to invite girls to drop their resistance. But it seems now that far more girls fall for those old lines. This contributes to the 25 per cent. illegitimacy rate and the consequent continuation of deprived families. This is because the moral values of old have been devalued by incessant undermining in the media.
School has an important role in the upbringing of children but it cannot do anything without the full support of the parents. It must be a joint effort by parents, teachers and, later in their lives, by apprenticeship and the foreman. Many schools respond to supposedly modern demands and have inadequate discipline, rules and standards. When the child is disciplined, the parents are liable to charge in and attack the teacher. But in many schools now there is a set of rules and good discipline and the parents are told that if they do not wish their children to be subject to those rules they should take them elsewhere. These schools tend to have far better results and their entry lists are over-subscribed. These schools cover all catchment areas and are not confined to the better areas.
Schools play a great part in upbringing. They can and do pick up those children with problems in their parental homes which can be traumatic. They also prepare, influence and point the children towards their futures. I remember visiting a school in Malawi some years ago. I saw written on the wall in large letters a famous quotation:
"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
476
I think it would be no bad thing if that were writ large in every school in this country.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I join other noble Lords is thanking the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for raising this subject for debate. We are all deeply concerned about what is happening to children and adolescents in our society, especially those of us who are, like myself, very deeply involved in work on the incidence of poverty. I am involved in Church Action on Poverty and the important work that it is doing. I especially welcome the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. I welcome his return to my life after a long absence. We were at theological college together.
We have heard from a number of able speakers. I suspect that we have missed one or two because noble Lords have not been able to be present. My noble friend Lord Thurso very much hoped to stay but, faced with competing claims between speaking in the House on this important subject and raising money for the Boy's Brigade, has opted for action rather than words. He asked me to say how much he appreciated the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about core funding. He asked me to raise, which I can only do en passant, a question which has hardly been touched on. I refer to the care and back-up that we need to give to the carers—those who bear the emotional stress of looking after those who themselves need care.
It is particularly welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, introduced the topic of the help given by voluntary bodies. I intend to devote my short contribution to the work of one of those bodies; namely, the Family Service Units. This organisation has been about for a long time and has, in a rather old-fashioned and quiet way, helped families at their own level. It has worked with individual families to help them to deal with problems on their own terms. It has carried out some valuable research work and has just published a series of reports on life on income support. Some of the individual case histories are most informative. One which I picked out from among those that I have was the case of a client who had very bad experiences dealing with bureaucracy.
I pay warm tribute to the work of the statutory social services. But there is undoubtedly an edge which voluntary bodies can have over them when dealing with individual families. There is enough misery in poverty without being bullied. That, I am afraid, sometimes tends to happen. The particular client to whom I refer recalled that those at the FSU listened and encouraged the client to start thinking about what she could do to make her own life more endurable. They encouraged her to take the occasional evening out, and even enabled her to do so, knowing that relief of the pressures on the client can improve the life of the whole family. There is enough misery in poverty without adding voluntary martyrdom or working oneself into a state of self-condemnation for any pleasure one may take.
The client also said that the Family Service Unit listened. She said that they did not put you down or

477
say, "OK, I'm here and I'm in charge. If you didn't need help you wouldn't come to us. So this is the help we are going to give you. Take it or leave it". In other words, those concerned at the FSU worked with individuals as individuals with their own particular problems and weaknesses.
If we want to have a healthy society in this country in 50 years' time, we must find ways of breaking the cycle of deprivation to which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, so rightly drew our attention as long ago as 1972. This is not something that the Government can do on their own; it needs the help of that section of society which is inspired by humanitarian and Christian care for individuals and families. It is in individual families that the chain can be broken and the tide turned. It cannot be broken in any other way.
But money is needed. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was quite right to underline that point. Money is needed from society as a whole to help the bodies that are carrying out such work and to provide the infrastructure which will help them. An adequate basic income for all citizens is, quite frankly, the first sine qua non for rearing healthy families and securing responsible society. It is as important that a parent has some freedom as that he or she has a sense of responsibility. They need both freedom and a sense of responsibility. If he or she is going to be able to pay for a child to go on school outings rather than the child not being able to go because the family cannot afford it, or is to be able to provide, say, a cake for a small party—which is the kind of thing that many families cannot now do —there must be a higher level of support than there is at the moment.
Other needs are playschemes, drop-in centres for isolated parents and family centres offering help with parenting schemes. Only this morning my daughter told me that in her area of Surrey there is a bus which travels around the area carrying people who can help with parenting schemes and who are available to be consulted and to offer the kind of information and support that are needed. That all costs money from local or central government. There is much that the Government can do; indeed, there is a lot that they must do if bodies such as the FSU, which is doing the job that the Government and all of us want done, are to operate even more effectively than they do now.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too should like to extend my warmest congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on his very constructive and helpful maiden speech. I hope that he will be able to spare time from his episcopal duties to join us and participate in debates on many occasions in the future. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Joseph for introducing this very worthwhile and helpful debate. I must apologise to him as I fear I may not be able to wait to hear his speech at the end of the debate due to prior commitments.
Parental responsibility is very much a guiding principle of the Children Act, and that is the line that
478
I should like to take today. I do not have the specialist experience of, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, of specific voluntary organisations, although I shall make some general comments about the work of the voluntary sector. I only wish that the pearls of wisdom that your Lordships are dropping on the subject could he read by all parents in this country. That would be very beneficial.
It is certainly true that the problems of children growing up may be affected by poverty in families, but, as several noble Lords have said, they are not necessarily caused by poverty. However, I should like to make the point that in my experience there is as great a danger from wealthy parents spending their time enjoying themselves or increasing their wealth and thereby neglecting their children as for poor families which suffer from the pressures that undoubtedly afflict those near the poverty line.
To recapitulate a number of points that have been made, and following the line of the first half of the Motion, I should like from my experience to emphasise some aspects that I believe are vital for parents in bringing up their children. The first aspect that I should like to emphasise is security. I believe that a child finds his or her security primarily in the parents' love and acceptance of the child as an individual. Love and acceptance from the parents are much more important than the size of the house or the status of the school. Parents need continually to affirm the value of the individual child and to give that child love and praise. In that way I believe that a child can feel secure. Parents who continually tell their children that whatever they do is not good enough do not help to create a stable and secure framework.
The next point is the need for parents to spend time with their children. That is much more important than money and lavish presents, which often seem to be a substitute for spending time with children. Parents need to spend time doing various things and practising hobbies with their children. But such efforts may be thwarted. For example, I intended to spend the greater part of this Monday with my son at the test match, but those wretched cricketers decided to finish after four days. I was thus deprived of spending a day with my son watching cricket, but I brought him to lunch in your Lordships' House as a very weak second string.
I was having dinner in your Lordships' House with a couple last night. The man was going off on a cricket tour just to spend time with his son who is playing cricket on that tour. Those are the things we need to be doing with our children in order to create responsible and stable citizens of the future. We need to listen to them, encourage them, attend school functions and spend time with them.
A third point I should like to raise, which I have not yet heard mentioned, is the need for parents to discuss with them the pressures that the children face. I am conscious of the problems our children face with regard to the clothes that they wear, as well as the activities that they indulge in with their peer group —with the "in" crowd. Parents need to be in there discussing this with our children. We need to do this to foresee future difficulties and show our children that we are their friends and they can talk to us about

479
anything. I should perhaps mention that I have only four children, unlike my noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her 300. Therefore it is very much easier for me than it is for some other parents.
My final point is an obvious one—the need for parents to set the behaviour guidelines, or, if you like, to strengthen the discipline for children. From my experience, I see our children needing to know exactly where they stand on what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. While our children are very different, they have all tried to push against the boundaries to find out how far my wife and I will let them go in the discipline field. They need to know what they can and cannot do and also what sanctions will be administered if they break the boundaries. I shall not go into the question of physical discipline, but sanctions need to be realised and the boundaries set and kept to by parents. Bad disciplining needs help for the parents. But it should not mean that disciplining is to be abolished. I believe that this will all help to strengthen committed and compassionate relationships in the family.
I come next to the help for parents which I believe is often needed, particularly in one-parent families. If I did not have a wife and had to bring up children, I know how much help I would need, whether from the voluntary or the statutory sector. The community as a whole should have an active concern for the welfare of each family in its area and should help parents to exercise their responsibility, but that the statutory or voluntary sector should not undermine the responsibility of parents but should help them.
I should like to see the societies that we have been talking about this afternoon getting in there to help the parents on a one-to-one level when they become aware of needs. Ideally they should be able to help prevent problems before they arrive but when problems have already arrived they should be ready to help the parents and support them in solving those problems.
As I see the voluntary sector today, I am pleased that it is becoming more and more professional in the way that it acts. That does not mean that it is becoming less personal, but more professional in the way that it operates. Where there are still many charities that are not professional, I hope that they will strengthen the professionalism with which they are doing this work.
I also believe that parents should carry the responsibility for children's offences within the judicial process. I am pleased at the thought of parents having compulsorily to attend court when 10 to 15 year-olds are themselves in court.
Finally, a word on the problems that arise in the event of divorce or separation of parents—a problem that is undoubtedly increasingly common. I am very glad that it is the principle that both parents should continue to have access and have as much relationship time with the children as possible. There are obviously enormous problems. I was told only yesterday of a divorce in progress where the husband lives in this country and the wife is going off with another man
480
who is a South African and wants to take the children to South Africa. That creates an impossible dilemma that needs to be sorted out in each individual case.
I also believe that there should be much wider access for other members of the family in the event of divorce. I know that nowadays we tend to be split up in nuclear families, but there should always be an exploration of the possibility of other members of either the husband's or the wife's family being able to have substantial access and responsibility for the children. This can provide stability of relationships which are being badly undermined by the failure of the child's parents' marriage and can itself offer some measure of security in a situation which has totally dissolved. Where parents fail, the voluntary sector should be encouraged to offer all the help that it can to the parents and, through them, to the child so as to provide the security, the time, the discussion and the discipline that are needed to help build up stable and responsible citizens for the future.
5.26 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should like to add my warm congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on his splendid speech and his encouraging references to the part that the Church is playing in meeting the problems we are talking about today. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Joseph for introducing this debate, for there can be no more important subject than bringing up children. Ideally, as other speakers have said, it is based on love and care in a stable, secure family, plus skilled and dedicated teachers at school. In both home and school too it needs a way of life which engenders trust and sets high standards, by example, for children to follow.
But, alas, too many children do not enjoy such benefits. They grow up with serious problems—lacking confidence and purpose and with little hope of a full and satisfying life. In such cases voluntary work can make an immensely valuable contribution, whether by individuals or by charitable organisations, not least because such organisations are more flexible and quicker to act in meeting the needs of individuals.
Fifty or more years ago there was much voluntary work done in caring for poor and disadvantaged people; indeed, at that time it was almost the only source of support and many families and children benefited greatly. Although there is more to life than money and possessions, as others have said, grinding poverty and hunger make a bad basis for good parenthood. Welfare state payments and support have an essential part to play, but in no way should voluntary work be derided as patronising and degrading as it used to be—and still is on occasion, I am afraid—by the party of noble Lords opposite with that cry of "Welfare by right and not by charity". Perhaps in the past there was a bit of that about in regard to charitable work and perhaps the motivation for it was sometimes somewhat suspect; perhaps there was a bit too much of "My Lady Bountiful". But much dedicated, valuable and caring work was done which was not always fully valued.

481
I remember so well my mother working in a voluntary capacity in the Westminster Hospital. When the day came for the National Health Service to be introduced she was told that her services were no longer required because there was no place for voluntary work. Indeed, when the welfare state came in, as it did with so much value and so much good to be done—which was done—bureaucracy multiplied and much voluntary effort was derided. In schools self-expression became the cry and discipline went out of the window. But now, thank Heavens, the wheel is turning full circle: teachers want to restore discipline, but, sadly, they often receive little help from misguided parents.
The organisation Schools Outreach was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Joseph and Lord Elton, and so I shall say no more about it except that it is a tragedy that that organisation, which has existed now for 15 years or more and which has shown its worth by helping children to live a full life and overcome their problems and by helping teachers by going into the schools at their invitation, has been unable to obtain any appreciable support from Her Majesty's Government. I hope that that policy will change. It is a fine organisation.
The Government seek to improve schools through the participation and support of parents. Many are willing to help, but they are unsure as to how they can best do so. In education and many other fields affecting young people the Government are looking to voluntary organisations and the private sector to take over much of the work done by the rather more bureaucratic and slow-acting public sector, because they believe, rightly, that the voluntary organisations provide better value for money.
Although much excellent voluntary effort is provided free by individuals, money, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull has already made clear, is still needed to provide the essential infrastructure for charities: buildings, communications, travel and research. That raises two problems. More care and thought are needed before the Government transfer responsibility for such work to voluntary charitable organisations, otherwise damaging vacuums will be opened up, as we have seen in other spheres.
Secondly, although in general charities are more cost-effective and more flexible than the public sector, their greater responsibilities can be discharged only if they have more money than they have usually had in the past to do less work.
Great progress has been made under Conservative Governments over the past 10 or 15 years in encouraging and facilitating charitable giving; but it is still inadequate to meet the needs of the great many voluntary organisations. I was rather surprised to hear my noble friend Lady Faithfull say that charitable giving was increasing because I understand that there has been an overall decline in the average percentage of personal incomes devoted to charity. It has decreased from about 0.75 per cent. to 0.6 per cent. over the past 10 years or so. That compares badly with the United States, where the figure is nearer 2 per cent. That is on the individual side. Similar considerations
482
apply to large public companies in the United Kingdom. The figure is about 0.5 per cent. of the companies' gross profits. In the USA the figure is over 2 per cent.
As a chairman of one or two public companies I never received complaints at annual general meetings about money given to charities. There were complaints that we give money to this, that or no political party, but never any complaint or criticism about the money given to charities. Equally, when trying to raise money for charities, I have received hundreds of letters from company chairmen declining to contribute to appeals on the ground that they did not think it right to give away shareholders' money. It costs a great deal less to collect £10,000 from 10 companies than to collect £10 from 1,000 people. There is real value to be obtained from corporate giving for charitable purposes.
It would be good if we were to introduce a code of practice for companies which would require that at annual general meetings a positive resolution should be put to shareholders by the directors detailing the amount of money that they propose to spend on charitable donations in the ensuing year. That would prevent any shareholders saying that money was being given away for purposes of which they did not approve.
The Government too could help further at a moderate cost. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull made clear, the provision of core funding is important. It would be of immense value to charities if that could be done on a three-year rolling basis. That would give a sound base for future planning so that the charities would know that the careers of their staff were safeguarded for a reasonable period ahead. They could then concentrate much more effort and time on doing the real job of the charity and on raising money for operational purposes.
Secondly, I should like to see the Government offer, far more often, contributions to selected, well-run charities on a pound-for-pound basis to stimulate private donations. There are good precedents for that. I used to be a trustee of the Prince's Youth Business Trust which was set up to provide small sums of money to help unemployed and disadvantaged people start their own businesses. There the Government undertook to provide, pound for pound, up to a sum of some £40 million. That made a tremendous difference. The same amount of money was raised through private donations, which would never have been achieved if that assurance had not been given.
Thirdly, I should like to see the Government encourage local authorities to co-operate much more closely with charities, especially in the planning of their future work programmes so that the charities can see from where support is coming and where they can best concentrate their efforts and use their always limited resources. There is also great scope for government support of voluntary organisations providing the sporting and other outside activities which are so essential for the development and health of older children.
I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Elton on the debt we owe to our parents and their generation

483
for the way they passed on to us the Christian faith and how much the present younger generation would benefit if we could do the same as effectively. The speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry gives us hope that the darkest hour may be passed and that we may be on the up gradient in restoring the Christian faith to its true position in this country. That would be of enormous benefit to the younger generation and help solve the problems we have been discussing.
To help parents to bring up children healthy in mind and body is fundamental to the future happiness and stability of the community. We can obtain better value for money through the effective contributions of voluntary organisations, but let the emphasis be on greater value and not on saving money, for that is by far the best investment we can make to ensure the future happiness of this country.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Joseph for bringing up this important subject and for telling us of the many voluntary bodies which can help parents in what is an increasingly difficult world; but I am sorry that he omitted that most important voluntary body of all, the grandparents. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, emphasised the importance of child benefit. I was interested in her figures of the average cost of bringing up a child. If we had had no children, we might have been £250,000 better off, and my noble friend Lady Faithful' would have been a multimillionaire.
Perhaps I may also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on his most constructive and sensible maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear him often. I should also like to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who was in her place a moment ago, and to say how glad we all were to see her.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Strange: My Lords, it is interesting that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys should have discovered that couples who have cohabited before marriage are 60 per cent. more likely to separate or divorce than those who have not. It is interesting, but not surprising, for marriage is a total commitment. It can be the best possible relationship; it can also be the worst. It is like two horses pulling a carriage—they must both work together; if one stops then the carriage does not move.
Other societies where men are in short supply have favoured polygamy or, when women are, polyandry. But since the days of Adam and Eve the best proved and tried way of bringing up a family has been with a father and mother committed to each other. It does not always work, but then human nature is like that. Even Adam and Eve had less success with Cain than with Abel and Seth.
A child is a gift from God, something special. A child is also part of the future of the world. All parents feel this and want their children to have what is best in the world. Material things are important—all
484
children need to be warm and well fed so that they can grow physically into strong, healthy adults. They need the best possible education so that their brains can keep pace with their bodies and they can earn the best possible living for themselves. But when all is said and done, what children need most to take them into the future is a secure background of love and knowledge of their country's past and of their own family history: who Uncle Bertie was and what Grandpa did in the war. When my husband and I visited my brother's grave at Uden in Holland last March, we found a touching message in the visitors' book:
"Remembering with love a great uncle whom I never knew".
That young man was born 30 years after his great uncle had been killed, but the loving family memories were part of his background.
Commitment to children and to parents does not cease when the children have grown up any more than does love after death. For our ruby wedding, some of our grown-up children flew back from Australia and America. One travelled across France with a car-load of babies. Last night my son went to congratulate two friends who had just become espoused and to take an after-dinner cup of coffee with their hostess. He arrived on his motor bike, dressed appropriately, at 11 p.m. at the house of his hostess's noble father, unaware that she had moved into a flat of her own. Her noble father took one look at my son in his motor-bike kit and telephoned his daughter to see whether she would really be pleased to see him before disclosing the address. He was still a caring parent.
When our children were small someone once asked me what was important in bringing them up. I said, "Love is the most important thing". One of the children overheard and remarked crossly, "What Mum means by 'love' is not letting you do things and saying no and going on". I said, "So it is. If I did not love you, I wouldn't bother. I would let you grow up to be a horrid pig".
Chapter 13 of I Corinthians, which your Lordships will know by heart, says it all. Perhaps the Christmas carol about what to give the infant Jesus tells us also much about what to give our children:
"What can I give Him, Poor as I am? If I were a shepherd I would give a lamb; If I were a wise man I would do my part; Yet what I can I give Him— Give my heart".
5.44 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate and grateful to my noble friend Lord Joseph for making it possible. I also wish to join others who have taken part in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on his excellent maiden speech. As someone who has known him for over 20 years and has been involved with him in a charity over that period, I can only say that the concern which he expressed today for those in need and his vision of a renewed Church and what it can do for our nation are characteristic of his whole life and ministry. They have

485
been an example to us all. Like my noble friend Lord Brentford, I look forward to many more speeches by the right reverend Prelate in this House.
I am delighted to take part in this debate because I believe that the subject is very important. I first began to realise its significance while working as an adviser to the previous Prime Minister. By profession I was an economist —an occupation not known for its obvious concern for humanity. My responsibilities in the policy unit covered the whole of domestic policy. I discovered in one area after another where there was genuine concern by the Prime Minister—in areas such as juvenile delinquency, truancy, football hooliganism, homelessness among young people, teenage pregnancies, drugs and so on—one factor which contributed to the problems was a breakdown in relationships between children and their parents.
I discovered that the cause was not simple, and nor was the relationship between cause and effect straightforward. But the more I talked to those involved (teachers, social workers, probation officers and people employed in helping the voluntary sector) the more I discovered that when physical and emotional contact between parents and children had broken down, often the children developed a low self-esteem. They found it difficult to make relationships involving trust, they had a problem with authority and they felt angry with the world.
The result was that they turned either to behaviour which was self-destructive, such as taking drugs, or to behaviour that was destructive of others, such as being violent. The conclusion which I reached was that family policy was important and anything we as a society could do to strengthen relationships within the family to prevent such developments should be encouraged.
More recently, in connection with my involvement with the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the importance of parenting has struck me forcefully in the debate over reading. Regardless, for the present, of how reading should be taught in our schools, one factor which clearly affects a child's reading attainment is the influence of the home.
Perhaps I may quote evidence referred to in the recent National Foundation for Education Research study called Reading in Recession. It mentions the National Child Development Study dealing with seven year-old children who were born in 1958. The study found that when the child was young, factors such as whether it was living with both parents, the degree of parental interest in the child's educational progress and the pattern of employment, including unemployment or whether the mother worked, were significant in affecting the child's attainment in reading.
A study in the early 1980s of nursery schools which contrasted the use of language between children at home in conversation with their mothers and children at school in conversation with their teachers concluded:
"the home provided a more fertile environment for language learning than schools".
486
A subsequent study in the late 1980s of children in Bristol concluded:
"As with other researchers who have compared the language experiences of younger children at home and in the nursery or pre-school play-group, what we have found is that compared with homes schools are not providing an environment which fosters language development".
We all know of solid research which shows a strong relationship between children's knowledge of literacy at the age of five and their subsequent development.
All this suggests to me the importance of good parenting to educational achievement. I am a strong believer in the value of introducing the national curriculum and its assessment regularly through tests and examinations. I believe that the research evidence I have just referred to shows that children will still fail to realise their full potential if their parents are not involved. Children learn when they believe they can learn. Learning depends on self-esteem and self-esteem for children is something which grows with good parenting.
Of course no parents are perfect. Many of us know our faults as parents only too well. Some of us are artful dodgers when it comes to time. But to strive towards the ideal of both parents being accessible to the child so that the child develops as a person within relationships of trust and love—the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, just reminded us of that—and on a continuous basis must surely be something which all of us in your Lordships' House would wish to encourage.
The role of parents as educators is not confined to reading. Parents pass on values and they help their children form a view of the world and of themselves. Families are cradles of civic responsibility and therefore are fundamental to the nature of our society and to the future of our society. Yet regrettably there are many factors in modern life which tend to undermine parenting or else make it more difficult. For example, rising divorce rates make continuous contact between a child and both parents that much more difficult. The trend towards both parents working outside the home means less time for building relationships within the family. My noble friend Lord Brentford reminded us of that. Television and videos are such a temptation for us as parents to use to get a quiet life. I remember that from when my children were much younger. Once again the use of television and videos means less time for building relationships within the family. I am afraid that, however unfashionable it is to make my next point, I must say that the status of mothering is something which I personally feel has been undermined by the feminist movement.
If therefore there is one result of all of these trends it is that they reduce the time available within the family for parents and children to build relationships. Earlier in this debate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made some interesting points about the financial concerns of families. I did not think her points were central to this debate but I should like to return to them on some future occasion.
Although I put great emphasis on values and on time within the family, I do not wish to underestimate in any way the severe adverse impact which sudden

487
unemployment or a sudden rise in interest rates could have in terms of the strains such matters put on a family. However, I do not wish to make economic and financial factors dominant because the problems we now have within our families in this country have been growing over a period of 20 to 30 years, during which time prosperity has also grown. As has been said, problems in families apply right across the income range. They apply just as much to high income families as to low income families. I hope we can return to that subject later.
The second part of this Motion seeks to emphasise what is being done by voluntary societies. I believe that voluntary societies have three important strengths. First, they are in a position to emphasise people above programmes. So often in this area what parents really need is personal support and a personal relationship with someone outside the family rather than being introduced to a new programme into which they have to fit. Secondly, voluntary societies tend to be more flexible than government as they are not as bureaucratic and they can respond to changing needs more quickly. Thirdly, voluntary societies tend to tap directly into the great roots of good will and "volunteerism" which exist in our society and which are a part of our tradition that is still strong.
I have seen the benefits of those strengths of voluntary organisations at first hand as I have been involved with a charity called Cities in Schools. That charity has been set up to deal with the problem of truancy. As many truants come from a situation where family relationships are breaking down, that organisation has sought to create a surrogate structure for the family. I first came across the organisation while visiting inner city schools in Atlanta in the United States of America. The school I visited was situated on the sixth floor of a department store called Rich's which is the main department store in the city.
The school has I20 pupils, all of whom have been involved in crime and drugs. The pupils write essays and study mathematics. I asked individual children, groups of children and classes of children the same question. I asked them what the difference was between the school in the department store and the schools they had left. They all gave exactly the same response. They said the difference was that in the school they now attended the teachers really cared for them. The feeling that someone cares is an absolutely fundamental concept and it is at the heart of what good parenting is about.
In this country there are great services and societies in the voluntary sector but I wish we could have more new initiatives. Like my noble friend Lord Joseph, I hanker after the prospect of small amounts of government money being given to new initiatives such as the one in America. Perhaps the budgets of our departments of state should have a few more funds to start new initiatives. I talk about a small amount of money as I fear that if too much money were made available we would unfortunately change the nature of the voluntary sector. That sector would become more like an arm of government and it would lose its distinctive strengths.
488
In conclusion I emphasise how strongly I support this Motion. The children of today will be the parents of tomorrow. Parenting is not getting easier. If the children of today are deprived, as Mia Kellner would have said, of love and security, praise and recognition, responsibility and new experiences, we as a society will reap a bitter harvest. However I do not believe we shall do so. The family is an amazingly resilient institution but it needs our support. I believe that all of us in your Lordships' House should do everything in our power to encourage parents, the voluntary sector and government to provide the funding I have referred to and, more than anything else, to raise the status of being a parent in our society.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, that is a difficult act to follow. I congratulate the noble Lord on a brilliant speech. I also wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for the fact that I was not in my place when he made his opening remarks. I had a longstanding engagement to chair a befriending group which is perhaps relevant to what we are discussing today.
This is an important subject for two reasons: first because inadequate parenting causes suffering to children and, secondly, because it is extremely damaging to the citizens and parents of the next generation. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to the cycle of deprivation and the cycle of bad parenting which arises from the fact that one cannot learn to be a good parent unless one is taught by someone. In our society parenting has traditionally been taught at the mother's knee.
I have tried to write down the qualities of good parenting. I have noted love and security, and then I noted time in quite large letters. Unfortunately, my thunder has been stolen by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who emphasised the importance of time. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said in your Lordships' House a few days ago that it was very important for children to be careful in choosing their parents. It occurred to me that if I was being born today I might put in a bid for the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, referred to the problems of children who do not have satisfactory families and particularly to the fact that they develop a low level of self-esteem, which in turn leads to disruptive behaviour and poor performance at school. They become alienated and disillusioned. That is a subject on which I have spoken previously in your Lordships' House. At the root of the problem is the fact that there is no love, no security and not enough time—and unfortunately the lack of time is a characteristic particularly of single parent families and of those where both parents go out to work. Those, together with poor role models and lack of guidance, are the factors which lead to the problems of young people who are not properly parented.
The question arises, is help possible? The answer is, yes, as many noble Lords have said today. In extreme cases there is adoption, there is fostering and there are children's homes. Considerable mention has been

489
made of befriending and of outreach. The Schools Outreach movement has been referred to and I should like to say that I support that movement. I like to think of the idea as family outreach. It seems to me that outreach ought to be schools based, but reaching out to the family.
Under the Children Act local authorities are responsible in large measure for looking after children who are being inadequately parented and for children in need. I ask myself what is going wrong. According to the most recent figures that I have, in the inner city boroughs of London more than 300 children on the at risk register have not been allocated a social worker. The local authority will tell you that that is because the Government do not give them enough money. The Government will say that it is because the local authority is so inefficient that it is wasting money. I speak for the children. The children are suffering. We are grown ups and we ought to be able to sort the problem out and ensure that the children get the money to which they are entitled under the relevant legislation.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness—and I hope that she will answer in due course—what happened to the London Care Committee. I remember that when we were a young married couple my wife used to be attached to the social services and to a school. She used to go as a care committee worker to the school medicals. The doctor would pick out those children who had a problem. Mrs. James would be sent to call on the relevant parent. The drill was that one knocked on the door and said, "Mrs. So-and-so, I believe you may be entitled to free school meals". She would say, "Oh, come in and have a cup of tea". In that way one got into the house, had a look round and found out what the problem was.
As often as not it was something quite simple: little Johnny had missed five visits to the dentist because there were three other children who were younger than him and his mother did not have time to take him. In that case the care committee worker would put little Johnny into the car and take him down to the dentist. If, on the other hand, it was something more serious the matter would be referred back to the social services. Why can we not use volunteers within the social services in that way today?
Prevention is better than cure. I believe that many local authorities are simply fire fighting. They tackle problems as they come up but they are not able to get on top of the job. I look at the cost of curing rather than of preventing the problem. I was told the other day that to keep a seriously disturbed child in an institution, home or enclosed school for 365 days a year costs £55,000 if the child is likely to damage itself. To keep a child in an ordinary home for disturbed children, such as the excellent Caldecote Community Home in Kent, costs £36,000 a year. If one multiplies that by eight years it comes to a very great deal of money indeed—more than a quarter of a million pounds. That would pay for a great deal of outreach.
I believe that crèches and play schools for the under-fives are a key area, not only because children whose parents are not giving them the love and care to
490
which they are entitled can be given love and care by committed adults but, almost more importantly, the problems of the families can be picked up and they can be given help.
I shall ask the noble Baroness some questions to which I hope she can give me an answer when she sums up at the end of the debate. Can she give some commitment that the Government will make a serious effort to end the ding-dong quarrel with local authorities so that children can receive the benefits to which they are entitled? Secondly, can serious consideration be given to the creation of crèches and clinics for the under-fives linked to family outreach so that family outreach workers can pick up cases where children are not being properly parented and work with the families if they are prepared to receive them. Can we also have support for outreach workers in primary schools with the same objective?
Finally, I come to an issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised, namely that of financing voluntary organisations. It is difficult to secure good staff, to provide a reasonable career structure and to justify training them when the funds which are available are often provided only on a one-year basis, and are sometimes not offered until after the beginning of the year to which they apply. There is a need for core funding for key staff of voluntary organisations.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, there can be no doubt that the idea of what constitutes the structure of the family and the role of parents is being discussed very fully. That idea naturally recognises the fact of the one parent family.
It is important for parents to feel that they have an important role to play in the influencing and guiding of their children besides that of any other body or organisation. They would like to know that the state recognises their role and works in partnership with them rather than apart or separately from them. Naturally parents need to recognise their part and responsibility so that other bodies or organisations are able to work from the foundations laid by the parents, which surely is the most important aspect.
There is a partnership, with each having responsibility. The parents' part is a very important one and they cannot pass all responsibility on to others. One parent families are in many ways more vulnerable, with stress and strain of a different nature to that faced by two parent families. They need help in their situation just as much as two parent families. That help needs to be provided by responsible, reliable persons of integrity who listen as well as talk and do not take advantage of their position. I believe that the word "listen" is important, not only in terms of parents being willing to listen to their children but also in all areas of life. Parents who are ready to listen to their children reap great rewards. In particular when the children come to adulthood and leave home, they still wish to return on occasions to talk openly and frankly with their parents. As has been mentioned, the helpers must be able to help from a knowledge of life as well as of theory. It is no good simply thrusting

491
forward theory. In putting theory across there must be with it the knowledge gained from experience. There must be a balance of practice and theory to bring about a reasonable and sensible solution. That is true for voluntary organisations and for local authorities.
As well as the traditional concept of the family there are other outlooks on the family structure which may seem strange to some and need understanding. We must be honest and frank when trying to understand how other people see different family structures. The traditional family way has perhaps faltered to some degree. That may explain why, in the past few years, the traditional family concept has taken a knock, so to speak. However, I hope and believe that the traditional family way is not completely down; some young people believe that it will soon be on the up again.
As I said, perhaps the example of the traditional way has faltered to some degree. My wife and I—she teaches and knows how youngsters think—talk to young people and recognise the impact of the tragedy of divorce. It is perhaps greater than we realise. The young see the fighting over the children, separation and divorce and so on, and say, "No thank you". As a parish priest I come across the custom of people living together, although it often happens that a man and a woman will live together for a time but then decide to get married. Perhaps they live together because they fear a tragedy similar to what has happened in so many traditional marriages.
The qualities of the true parent are those necessary in life as a whole. If those qualities are shown in the parents, no doubt they will appear in the children throughout their life: it radiates from the family out to life, to school, to clubs, to institutions and to the different careers and professions to which those children will go. Parents who hold together in trust and love passed on to the children are an essential part of the structure of life. Values and standards mature with knowledge and understanding through members of a family listening to one another as well as talking. That is one of the greatest joys: families listening and talking to one another.
The house may he made of brick and stone, a woman, a man and children living in it as a family. But it is not just a place where young and old happen to sleep and live. It is a place where real communication takes place between the different ages. As I said, parents give by listening to the children as well as speaking firmly to them. In families where parents simply tell and do not listen, the results can be seen. Where there are no signs of parents being willing to listen the results are evident.
The vast depth of responsibility that parents carry in bringing up and caring for children cannot be underestimated. I am pleased to have heard the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. I agree with him. It is heartening to note that there are signs of a return of the natural way of a family, if I may so describe it. It is the natural way that we have been given by God—the instincts of care, compassion and love given to one another. That is coming back: a man and a woman take the loving plunge to commit themselves to one another. I believe
492
that young people who see that want it. Basically, deep down in all young people, I believe that that is what they wish.
We are indebted to my noble friend Lord Joseph for introducing this subject. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, as I am sure they will, are able to find a way to further the hopes and ideals which have been expressed. There are parents who need help and encouragement. We thank God for those parents who bring up a family without any help. We are grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter.
6.18 p.m.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having put down my name in good time on the list of speakers. Clearly, I was not very well brought up or I should have done better. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for initiating the debate.
Bringing up children is very important. It is of particular importance up to the age of about six, because how children are brought up affects them for the rest of their lives. Far be it from me to suggest how parents should bring up their children. But as the debate is on that subject I venture to offer a few thoughts which have proved efficacious in years gone by. Above all, treat children as though they were grown up; talk to them all the time in language that they can understand; and tell them all you know about everything. They will then be off to a flying start. Have some very strict rules but, without spoiling them, give them lots of treats and lots of affection. There is nothing that they will not do for you.
I recognise that my contribution to the debate has been an extremely small one. I shall say no more.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for introducing the debate on this subject. I begin by expressing my appreciation of the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate. There has been much emphasis in the debate on Christian values. I do not decry those. However, I am sure that noble Lords will also appreciate that there are other ethical and religious systems which provide a framework within which it is possible responsibly to bring up children. I see that the right reverend Prelate nods and appreciates that point.
Although not contained within the terms of the Motion, I believe that there is concern about an apparent growth of juvenile delinquency and juvenile crime. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made reference to that. There is certainly a belief that society is a much less safe place than it once was, and that if that state of affairs is to be remedied we have to try to ensure that a decent respect for what are regarded as civilised values is engendered early in life—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph.
We on this side of the House are also anxious to ensure that we live in a safer, kinder society. It is often poorer, older people who feel most threatened by

493
delinquency in the young, as anyone who has knowledge of the more rundown estates and poorer areas can testify. However, there is sometimes a tendency to put the responsibility for poor parenting almost entirely on the parents. Clearly, in an ideal world everyone would grow up in a loving and supportive family. But we have to take into account changes in perceptions. As has already been indicated, one in three marriages now ends in divorce; and there has been a growth in the number of single parent families, mostly headed by women.
In its recent report, the Social Security Advisory Committee states that in 1990–91 the number of single parent families claiming income support rose to 0.8 million, an increase of 4 per cent. over the previous year. Of those, over half were divorced or separated and over half had at least one child under five. Only about 23,000 lone parents were working between 16 to 24 hours a week.
The committee states that, while it supports the underlying principle of the Government's paper, Children Come First—that both parents should be responsible for the financial support of their children —the clear majority of the committee was concerned about those women who do not name the absent parent, in particular for fear of violence to themselves or to their children. The Social Security Advisory Committee is pleased, as we are, that the Government have extended the good cause provision for failing to name the absent parent from what was originally proposed. Nevertheless, some anxieties remain and the committee states that it will continue to take a keen interest in the way in which the proposals are implemented. So also should we.
The degree to which poverty and deprivation play a role in rendering successful parenting impossible has been emphasised frequently in the debate. I wish to stress it again. The Child Poverty Action Group, an active organisation in the voluntary sphere, recently produced an interesting report entitled Hardship Britain. What makes it exceptional among academic studies of deprivation is the fact that the Family Service Unit and Bradford University asked people on the receiving end about their experiences of the poverty culture.
There is no doubt that the restrictions associated with a lack of money can make people feel trapped. Choice is a factor that they cannot even consider. Many of the respondents in the survey spoke about their guilt feelings because they could not give their children what they thought they ought to have. They did not refer just to food and clothing but to entertainment and, for the younger children, toys. Many said that the worst thing about being "on the social" was "watching the children go without". Shortage of money had a special impact on the self esteem of parents. Often they regarded being a good parent as of overriding value. That was sometimes judged by how much they could give the child in material terms. It was intensely distressing when they could not afford to give the children what they believed they needed.
The report comments that it may be easy for better
494
off parents to dismiss the material side of parenting, but the claimants involved could not do so however much they wished to. Many mentioned the awful feeling of guilt about having to say no to children. They felt that they had failed in some way. Typical comments were, "I can't buy enough things. It makes me so desperate because I can't do anything about it". Many were like the lone parent who said, "I don't want my kids to suffer because I'm on the social. I feel awful when other kids' dads are working". Parents did not want their children to be singled out at school because they did not have decent clothes or could not afford school trips. In the survey some parents had got into debt trying to meet those needs and had become caught in a debt cycle. Pressures upon women were particularly strong since women were more likely than men to associate their own sense of self worth with how they provided for and brought up their children. Some mothers' self sacrifice in the quest to be "good mothers" while lacking material resources led them to submerge their own physical and mental needs.
Many lone parents in the survey, and in others which have been undertaken, indicated that they wished to work if employment could be found for them that enabled them to earn money to look after their children and at the same time to feel confident that the children were being properly cared for while they were at work. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone has said, the UK tends to lag behind other EC countries in that respect. Local authorities no longer appear to be in a position to provide facilities on the scale required, while workplace nurseries are still relatively uncommon. Charges for child care, where it exists, are frequently too high for those women trapped in low-paid work. There are signs that public and government attitudes to the provision of such facilities are changing but progress is still too slow.
I make these points in the debate because for the vast majority of even very poor people good parenting is perceived as an aim. They feel guilty if they are unable to provide it in accordance with the standards that they have set themselves. A good deal of the available evidence suggests that unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment, has a devastating effect upon general health and upon family relationships. The strains and tensions involved are sometimes responsible for an atmosphere in which growing children in particular feel rejected.
We have already debated in this House the Social Security Advisory Committee report to which I have made reference. Anxiety has been voiced at the paragraphs relating to 16 and 17 year-olds. There has been a disturbing increase in the number of very young people sleeping rough on our streets. The Government's social policy appears to be based on the belief that most young people, even up to the age of 25, can live at home with parents in a supportive family environment. We now know that that is by no means always the case. Indeed, in very poor families —some noble Lords have already referred to this—young people may actually be encouraged to leave, in particular in households where there has been a partnership change resulting in step parents. The

495
Social Security Advisory Committee made specific recommendations to try to deal with that situation. They include the suggestion of a review of current procedures for 16 and 17 year-olds claiming severe hardship. I very much hope that the Government will take those recommendations seriously and will act upon them.
I raise those issues in the context of the debate because, although it is clear that many voluntary organisations can and do assist to improve parenting, some of the problems which have arisen recently and which have attracted much publicity have occurred in areas and among families where there has been deprivation. Assistance can of course be given to lone parents and others facing difficulties—for example, through help with budgeting and with making social security claims. Counselling can be and is provided in regard to the care and upbringing of children. However, the social context in which that assistance is required cannot be ignored. On some "problem" housing estates, for example, the majority of the population of working age is "on the social". Facilities for children and for young people are poor or non-existent.
The causes of social deprivation have to be tackled. One of the main causes is surely the high level of unemployment, which engenders alienation, loss of self esteem, apathy and a general lack of hope. This is not an economic debate, but these issues are interwoven. In my view it is not possible to discuss good parenting or its absence without referring to them.
Of course, the causes of bad and anti-social behaviour are not to be found in social deprivation alone. Many would say that the highly individualistic social attitudes that have been encouraged during the past decade have played a part. The 1980s have been described as the "me first years". I believe that there may well have been a weakening of social cohesion as a result. Those are complex issues but they must be addressed if the needs of both parents and children are to be adequately safeguarded in the future.
Finally, I must respond to a comment that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. He said that Members of these Benches believed in welfare as of right and did not care much about voluntary organisations. I give no ground to anyone in support for voluntary organisations. I have long been a member of the council of the Save the Children Fund. But, yes, we on this side of the House believe in welfare as of right and we do not believe that there is any reason why we should apologise for that.
6.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. I enjoyed in particular the mini-biography given by my noble friend Lord Elton and now I know a little more about the right reverend Prelate. I also enjoyed the moving tribute made by my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. I speak for the whole House in saying that we look forward to hearing a great deal more from the right reverend Prelate.
496
Excellent speeches have been made on all sides. The debate has been not only interesting but important. The subject is complex and could take a great deal more of our time. There is no way in which I can do it full justice. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Joseph for giving us the opportunity to debate the important issue. I believe that I speak for the whole House in saying that we recognise the contribution he has made to the concern for young people and the effectiveness of parenting generally.
The Government recognise the importance of the family and the effectiveness of parenting. What is good parenting? Consistent love and discipline, firm guidance in values and behaviour are essential elements. That provides the framework within which children develop. For all too many children that is not their experience. A wholesome family life and good parenting is one of the greatest challenges of our time.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Joseph was directed at the voluntary sector as much as to government. I wish to concentrate on that. We would welcome constructive suggestions for the greater involvement of voluntary organisations and will do all that we can to create a climate in which the voluntary sector can flourish. Indeed, we have gone a long way down that road in government at both national and local level. The requirement is structurally built into the way in which our local social services departments work together with the voluntary sector to provide services to their communities.
Education has a key role in providing support to parents in bringing up their children. It can convey the right messages and inculcate the right values. And because it can do that parents must be encouraged to be interested and involved in the education of their children. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Griffiths. If they are, education should reflect their priorities and beliefs, support them in their difficult task of bringing up their children and ensure that the classroom complements the family home.
Government can clearly do much. We can create the conditions under which good parents and responsible citizenship can flourish, but we cannot, nor should we, relieve parents of their responsibilities. However, we do recognise that, sadly, there is an increasing number of children who for one reason or another do not receive support from home and for whom school is the only anchor in their lives. It is the only place where they can receive a set of values and a moral framework in which they can learn and grow. That is why I believe that what government do, and what the other partners in education do, is of such vital importance and why we all have a part to play. That includes the Church and, as was said by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, there is also a responsibility on the media.
That view underpins much of Government policy: it aims to ensure that young people are adequately prepared to undertake the duties and responsibilities of marriage and family life and, as my noble friend has stressed, fully to understand that the responsibilities of parenthood are not to be taken lightly.

497
Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires that the curriculum as a whole for all maintained schools should promote the:
"spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society"
and prepare young people for the,
"opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
These complementary elements are essential for adult relationships, marriage and parenthood. This House consistently re-emphasises those points.
The promotion of family life is included in the national curriculum. Others may be included by schools in their programmes of religious, personal, social and health education or sex education. Some aspects of religious education and sex education in schools leaves a great deal to be desired. They were the subject of recent debates in this House.
Beyond the statutory requirements, it is for governing bodies to determine schools' policies on sex education. Giving governors this responsibility ensures that schools are accountable to their pupils' parents for what is provided and that these parents have the opportunity to influence governors' decisions.
All those responsible for providing sex education in the school—governors and teachers—must 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. Last week I watched the hour-long television programme "Female Parts". I was thoroughly depressed by the fact that there was a prolific discussion about sex but almost no hint of the moral framework within which that subject should be discussed.
The National Curriculum Council has recommended that family life education should be a key component of schools' programmes of personal and social education. NCC guidance documents on health education and education for citizenship have been issued to all maintained schools in England. Both give significant consideration to the content of family life education and ways of integrating it into the curriculum.
Curriculum guidance No. 5, dealing with health education, advises that the principal objective of family life education is:
"that pupils understand and value the central role of the family as an institution and the important part it plays in the development of attachment, love and concern".
It suggests that pupils aged seven years and above should begin to understand what is meant by "relationships" within families, between friends and in the community, to understand the meaning of friendship and loyalty and begin to develop the skills needed to form relationships.
Curriculum guidance No. 8, dealing with education for citizenship, suggests that areas of study in family life education might include a study of family life-cycles and an understanding of:
"the importance of the family for physical and spiritual well-being, parenthood and child development, the fulfilment of emotional and physical needs".
Other measures are designed to develop positive attitudes, self-confidence and responsibility in all
498
children as a preparation for adult life. I outline three of these. First, all Members of this House would surely agree that regular school attendance is essential for an effective education. Parents have a duty in law to ensure that their children of compulsory school age attend school regularly. But is is more than that; they must help their children to develop a positive attitude to school and to learning in general. It is a sad fact that parentally-condoned unjustified absence remains a serious problem. We must break out of this cycle, which has disadvantaged successive generations of children.
The Government have taken action on truancy but the onus must rest—as it always has and always will —with individual parents to encourage their children to pay proper attention to their studies. Only by inculcating such attitudes into the present generation of schoolchildren can we hope to influence the parents of tomorrow.
Secondly, it is surely beyond doubt that effective learning can only take place in an orderly atmosphere. The committee of inquiry led by my noble friend Lord Elton considered the issue of school discipline in the admirable report Discipline in Schools which remains essential reading. A full chapter was devoted to the crucial part that parents play in shaping the attitudes that produce sustained good behaviour in schools. Again, that point was emphasised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy.
Thirdly, each person must have positive attitudes towards work and the responsibility that it brings. The schools also bear a responsibility here: an orderly atmosphere in school; a firm yet fair framework of discipline; a moral and spiritual ethos; a readiness to distinguish between right and wrong; what is desirable and undesirable behaviour and what is moral and amoral; and the determination to develop within children the ability to learn and to help them take advantage of the national curriculum. These things more than anything will equip children, both those from supportive homes but more especially those children who do not enjoy the support at home, to take their place in the community as responsible adults.
The Motion before your Lordships is very much in line with the basic philosophy behind the Children Act 1989. That legislation strikes a balance between family autonomy and the rights of children. The Act holds the welfare of all children to be paramount, and makes major changes to the private law relating to children. It introduces the concept of parental responsibility to replace that of "parental rights and duties" and emphasises the obligations of the parents' role. The Act recognises that parents are the best people to bring up their children and that the family is the natural environment for children. Our aim is to provide a secure future for children. That can be achieved if parents, courts, voluntary organisations and central government work together.
Where it is necessary, local authorities should provide services to help parents to bring up their children in the home and these services should be provided in partnership with families. Local authorities must identify children in need in their area and

499
publicise the services they offer to support the families of those children. They must also set up a representations and complaints procedure with an independent element for those dissatisfied with the services provided.
Over 90 per cent. of children aged from two to five are to be found in organised education or under-five provision. They are at an early stage in the development of those social skills on which the success of their future learning will depend. The benefits of that provision may be deep and long-lasting, both in aiding the social and cognitive development of the children and in supporting the efforts of parents to bring them up well.
One strength of that provision lies in its variety. This country has brought together in an exceptional manner the strengths of the public, private and voluntary sectors and there has been notable growth over the last decade across the settings.
A good working relationship between provider and parents is one mark of effectiveness across the various settings. It has been given particular emphasis in the playgroup movement. The work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association is based on the belief that parents are the main educators of their children. By involving parents in all aspects of the management of groups and by special courses the PPA seeks to enable parents to fulfil that role.
The Government recognise the need to secure high standards of day care. That is why the Children Act secures conditions for the registration of day care providers and childminders. It is also why a former Secretary of State set up the Rumbold Committee to look at ways of improving provision for the under-fives. Its report Starting with Quality underlined the place of an educational component within good day care. Further research has been commissioned to do with the quality of care for the under-fives.
The role of the voluntary sector is crucial in any consideration of parenting. I have mentioned already the work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association. However, the actions of voluntary bodies complement those of local authority social services departments and they play a particularly important role in the area of advice, counselling, and befriending. Voluntary bodies are particularly attractive to those parents who may he reluctant to make a formal approach to local authorities for support and assistance.
The Department of Health funds many voluntary bodies on a regular basis, including funding to voluntary organisations for training in the Children Act. In addition, the department provides grants for specific projects and from time to time launches specific initiatives.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Griffiths at this point that his idea about being more innovative and trying out other ideas is one which I shall certainly take back to my colleagues in the department.
The Government are very willing to consider any specific proposals which might be stimulated by today's debate or which might arise from the Rowntree Foundation study of family support options to which my noble friend referred.
500
We are addressing the issue of special educational needs for children and we shall soon be issuing a consultative paper. We shall also be producing a white paper later this year which will build on the Education Reform Act 1988. I believe that in education we have the framework in place. Through the Children Act, and with the encouragement of the voluntary sector, I believe that the support systems are also in place.
This Government's policies run across many other departments; for example, the Department of Health has targeted aid to enhance child care and support; the Department of Social Security targets its financial help, and will increasingly so on those most needy; the Department of Employment is concerned with the advice and training of young people; and the Home Office is a lead department on protection measures for young people—for example, the tackling of drug and solvent abuse.
My noble friend Lord Joseph referred to Home-Start, a voluntary body working in the private sector in an excellent way. It has done some really practical work. That work is extremely valuable. That was an innovation of Margaret Harrison, whom I have met. She is an exceptional and extremely impressive young lady. She started in a small way in Leicestershire and her work continues.
My noble friend Lord Joseph mentioned also the issue of the introduction of transferable tax allowances. In 1986 a Green Paper was issued on the reform of personal taxation. That considered a proposal to allow the full transfer of personal allowances. However, the Government concluded at that time that there was not enough support to enable them to go ahead with such a far-reaching reform. The present rules for the married couple's allowance were designed to ensure that a husband's total allowances did not fall with the introduction of independent taxation and that a married couple would enjoy the same total allowances, whichever partner had the highest income. As a way of targeting families with children, the proposal for transferable allowances is not particularly well aimed; for example, that would also benefit childless one-earner couples.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that she would like more support to be given to organisations giving advice on marital breakdown. At national and local levels funds are being given to advice services. Indeed, the Home Office provides core funding to five major voluntary marriage guidance organisations to support the training of counsellors. The counselling is to help couples avoid marital breakdown and, if that is not possible, to reduce hostility and to encourage continuing co-operation as regards the children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was anxious also about the level of child benefit. We are committed to increasing the current value of child benefit each year in line with prices. That will continue to be paid to all families in respect of all children. However, that is only one of the comprehensive range of benefits which can help families with children, particularly needy families with children.
As regards the National Stepfamily Association—an association with which I am familiar—the Department of Health gives core funding to that

501
association. That is to be reviewed again in March 1993. It is also to be funded for a development project under the Family Support Initiative promoting services to children in need.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the importance of Government support for voluntary projects and services for the family. As I said, the Department of Health funds many voluntary bodies on a regular basis. In the financial year 1990–91 we provided £250,000 to voluntary organisations for training in the Children Act. In addition, we provide grants for specific projects and from time to time launch specific initiatives. An example of that was the Family Support Initiative. The department will spend £1.5 million over the next three years, starting this financial year, on the development of services for children in need within their families by funding projects operated by voluntary organisations which are original and innovative and which promote the use of the voluntary sector by local authorities in that field.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves the question of funding, will she take on board what my noble friend Lord Caldecote and other noble Lords said about the difficulties of being unsure of funding in advance and, if possible, the desirability of having rolling funding for a number of years rather than one? It makes the most enormous difference to the way in which charities are run.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has pre-empted me. I was coming to that later, but I am happy to deal with it now. It is an important issue. Indeed, my own local authority seized on this point some time ago. It has taken a view about certain voluntary organisations. My noble friend Lady Faithfull is right. One has to be certain that they are achieving the mutual objectives of both the local authority and the voluntary organisations. We went on to a three-year rolling programme of core funding for those voluntary organisations which were deemed to be important to us.
I now move to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. He was concerned about cross-curricula themes and thought that they might be squeezed out by the statutory curriculum. Schools are necessarily giving priority to the implementation of the statutory orders in the core and foundation subjects of the national curriculum. However, there is absolutely no intention to downgrade cross-curricula themes which are in fact delivered mainly through those core and foundation subjects. My noble friend knows that religious education, sex education and moral and spiritual education are just some examples of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lady Carnegie, referred to the Scottish Law Commission. As I understand it, the commission's proposal is about stopping excessive and unreasonable punishment of children. In England and Wales the law already forbids any punishment which goes beyond the reasonable or involves abuse and cruelty. Of course, it is very much for the courts to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable.
502
My noble friend Lady Carnegie of Lour was concerned about the publicising of help available to parents. Again, the Children Act requires local authorities to promote and publicise family support services including those provided by other agencies, which includes voluntary organisations. I can assure my noble friend that the Department of Health is also monitoring that aspect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was concerned about the preparation for parenthood—a very important matter. Again, in addition to parenting being addressed in personal and social education in many schools, the parentcraft classes are included in ante-natal programmes. It is interesting that parents who have had one child seldom attend the parenthood classes when having their next or subsequent children. That is a pity. Fathers are encouraged to attend the classes. Many of the classes are held at times more convenient to parents. All new mothers should receive copies of Health Education Association publications which include advice on how to care for new babies and young children.
The size of that challenge was brought home to me yesterday. I was told about a young boy talking to another. He said that he had four different fathers to his four different brothers. The other young boy, who came from a very supportive home, found that very confusing and could not understand it. The young boy said, "My mum gets bored with my dads and they have to go and she gets another one". That is the size of the task we are facing when we consider the issue of parenting.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and some noble Lords were concerned about flexible working arrangements. The Government take every opportunity to encourage employers to consider adopting flexible working arrangements. It makes sound business sense. Career breaks, flexible hours, job sharing, homeworking, and, where appropriate, assistance with child care help to enable employers to tap the full potential of their workforce.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote took us back to what I call the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s. He referred to the era of education when discipline was lax in schools and education lacked structure. For too many children the basic subjects were not always studied throughout the school years. There is possibly some correlation between that and the parents of today. Many of the problems that we have now concern parents who were children in schools at that time. I hope that those days are behind us. There is much more structure in the curriculum and there is very definitely a "back to basics" as regards subjects.
Reference was also made to outside sporting and recreational charities. That point was very well taken. I have dealt with the long-term funding. My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that we should help lone parents on low incomes with additional costs. I say to him that there is extra help for lone parents who wish to work. They are being given higher disregards and better tax allowances. They may claim additional personal allowances. Under the Children Act local

503
authorities must provide day care for children. I believe that over £100 million has been spent this year by local authorities on day care for these children.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked what had happened to the London Care Committee. I have no idea. I am advised by all the worthy people in the Box that they have no idea either. I shall go back to the drawing hoard on that matter and write to the noble Lord. He also pleaded with us to improve relationships with local authorities, in the interests of children. I can give him an absolute assurance that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is doing great work in that respect. There was also an appeal for crèches and facilities for the under-fives. Again, much work is being done on that front. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, also appealed for outreach workers in primary schools. I shall take that message back to my honourable friends.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths mentioned innovative ideas in his excellent speech and said that we should be looking around to find out where the best ones are and do something about them. I promise my noble friend that I shall do that.
It was Mrs. Thatcher, whom we shall soon welcome as a full Member of this House, who once said that there is no such thing as society. I believe that is right. Society is only the sum of its parts. If society is anything, it is an amalgam of individuals. If one uses the rotten apple in the barrel analogy, society is no different. The more that individuals are amoral and lack respect for people and property, the less wholesome society will be. However, the more that individuals are moral, spiritual, self-disciplined and have respect for people and property, then the more wholesome and healthy society will be. If we are successful that must be the aim for our young people. If we are successful then I believe that better parenting will follow.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, we must be grateful to the Minister for devoting nearly half an hour to commenting on all the speeches. I, for one, shall read with great care what she said. Her voice, as Shakespeare made King Lear comment on Cordelia, was gentle, which is a commendable thing in woman. But until the very last peroration of my noble friend I could not hear everything she said. As I say, there is much for us to study.
The debate has revealed a great deal of common ground on both sides of the House. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken. Every speech has been sensitive, constructive, deeply felt and sincere. It is invidious to pick out particular speeches. However, I know that I am entitled by the practice of the House to mention the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate. I believe that the whole House found its communal heart warmed by what he said and how he said it. I hope that we shall have many more similar speeches from him.
There were notable speeches from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lady Strange. They managed to make us not only
504
feel and reflect, but also laugh. If, of all the notable speeches that have been made, I mention especially those of my noble friends Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, Lord Elton and Lord Caldecote, that is in no way to denigrate the speeches of any other noble Lords.
As regards the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Turner, I am not in the least surprised that they took the opportunity to point out some related economic factors. There are many occasions on which we can discuss, debate and argue those issues. But the Motion is intended to focus on the voluntary services. That is why, for the first time recently, I followed a Commons practice and intervened in the noble Baroness's speech.
One factor about the voluntary services was mentioned several times, although I do not think that it received enough emphasis. I refer to the practice of the voluntary services identifying newly emerging needs and pioneering practices which the Government often follow for dealing with them.
The problem of funding has been common ground. It is a paradox that just as the issue is raised, the Audit Commission deluges us with evidence of waste in the public services. Surely it is common ground to ask the Government to find ways in which some of the savings to be made by following up the Audit Commission's appraisal can be devoted to enabling the voluntary services to be even more effective. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Young Offenders
7.1 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans for improving the treatment of young offenders.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am happy to think that I shall be followed immediately and throughout the debate by a considerable list of highly expert speakers. I am glad also that we shall not lack spiritual guidance. I do not say that such guidance will come only from the Episcopal Benches, but it will certainly come from there.
Perhaps the House will expect me to explain who I am talking about in the phrase "young offenders". I am referring to two groups—to young adults who are presently aged between 17 and 21, and to juveniles who are aged between 10 and 16. When the Criminal Justice Act comes into force in October, 17 year-olds will be transferred from the first group to the second, and the juvenile court will become a youth court. However, I am considering the situation as we find it today.
The House does not need me to stress the seriousness of this discussion. Many of your Lordships will be aware that crime in general doubled between 1979 and 1991. But perhaps not so many of your Lordships will be aware that 47 per cent. of the offenders were under 21 in 1989, the last year for which the official figures are available—or, at any rate, available to me.
The House has debated penal questions many many times since the war. We have touched on the issue of young offenders in many debates, including the notable one that was initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 9th June this year. I cannot, however, trace any debate that was devoted exclusively to young offenders. I am sure that everyone will agree that it is high time that we had such a discussion. It is long overdue.
A number of us in this House have criticised the existing penal arrangements again and again and again. We have said that far too many people are sent to prison and that when they are there, they are not treated in a way that is worthy of a Christian country. I shall not go over that general ground again today. As I have said, I shall deal with young offenders specifically. Although it would be a profitable topic on which to do so, I shall not spend time today on the question of why there is a general and prevalent idea that young offenders should be treated better than older offenders when they commit the same crime. I have said that there is an idea that young offenders should be treated better than older offenders. There is also a widespread idea that young offenders are treated better than older offenders, but that can hardly be said to be the case for young adults—that is, those between the ages of 17 and 21.
I have visited the young offenders' institution at Feltham twice in the past few weeks. The governor is a man of wide experience and much insight. I asked him whether the conditions not only in his particular young offenders' institution but in young offenders' institutions generally could in any sense whatsoever be said to be better than those in comparable adult institutions. He said no, that it was impossible to say that the young people were treated better. Indeed, he has allowed me to say something rather stronger than that. I should now like to quote the words of the present governor of Feltham, who has stated:
"It is my belief that with the developments within the Prison Service we have actually thrown the baby out with the bath water. We have lost the all-important vision for change which formed the core of the young offenders system".
No doubt he was thinking of the old borstal philosophy. He continued:
"In spite of the new legislation, we have now created prisons for young people which have neither vision nor a soul, and we are in danger of producing nothing but warehouses for young people".
Those words should go on record as the considered opinion, which he asked me to quote, of the governor of a young offenders' institution who has exceptionally wide experience.
At the moment I am dealing with the theory that young people should in some way be treated better than adults. It has long been recognised in theory that young people are more sensitive to both good and bad treatment. There is also a general view among the public that young people are less reprehensible than their elders when they commit the same crime. Although those views are widely held and one would like to think that they are given effect to, they are not given effect to at present.
However, I shall not strike too depressing a note tonight because, as the House may be aware—the
506
experts gathered here will certainly know this, but perhaps not everyone who reads Hansard—there has been a very remarkable reduction in the number of young people, and particularly juveniles under the age of 17, held in penal custody in recent years. As I said earlier, we so-called "penal reformers" have bela-boured the Government times without number because of the large and increasing number of people held in prison in recent years.
One must give credit to the Government in so far as they deserve it and, on the face of it, credit must, indeed, be given to them for the part that they have played in reducing the number of young people in custody in what are called the "Thatcherite years". to which reference was made in an earlier debate more enthusiastically than I should make it. However, we must not congratulate ourselves too soon because my next figures may not he so widely known. In the Home Office Statistical Bulletin of 28th May 1992—only the other day—it is estimated that the sentenced adult male population is projected to rise from 28,500 in 1991 to 35,000 by the year 2000. That point does not concern us immediately. However, the population of sentenced male young offenders is projected to rise until by the year 2000 it will be 6,400, compared with 5,700 in 1991.
If those projections are correct—and they have been issued officially on behalf of the Home Office —the decline in the number of young people in penal custody will not continue. In fact, it will be reversed and the number of young people in custody will increase. No one can be sure whether those projections will prove to be correct—one hopes that they will not —but at any rate the House should be made aware of them.
NACRO, which is well known to all of us, has played a leading part in promoting from outside the reduction of penal custody for young people. I give full credit to NACRO. It has been considering in a number of documents the possibility of a further reduction in the custody of young people. Its clearest recommendation is as follows:
"The Government should raise the minimum age at which the young person should he sentenced to detention in a penal institution from 15 to 16 years".
It would mean that 15 year-olds would no longer go to a penal institution. That is the clear recommendation of NACRO and it is supported by the Howard League and other bodies interested in penal reform.
NACRO wishes the possibility to be explored of keeping all young offenders under 18 out of penal custody. That would mean that 15 year-olds, 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds would all be excluded from young offender institutions, of which Feltham is just one example. The Government have accepted that 15 and 16 year-olds should not be held in penal custody on remand and they are following up that policy in various ways, which I welcome.
I have a number of questions to put to the Government of which I have given them full notice. Perhaps I may say how happy I am that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is handling this debate. As I may have remarked before, he cannot do better than consult his uncle, Mr. David Astor, who is doing more

507
for penal reform than any other private individual. I hope that the noble Viscount has not neglected his guidance.
My first question is as follows. How far do the Government accept, at any rate as aspirations, the proposals put forward by NACRO? I should add that the numbers are not large in the case of 15 and 16 year-olds. According to my figures, which may be superseded by any figures that the noble Viscount can produce—but not by much I suppose—the number of 15 year-olds in custody is 109 and the number of 16 year-olds is 246. The numbers become a good deal larger if 17 year-olds, who, on my figures, number 1,225, are included. I should like to know what the Government propose to do about the 15, 16 and 17 year-olds who now go to penal custody.
But that is, in a sense—although I support it—a negative policy. It is a minimum requirement but it is in a sense negative. It is deciding not to do something damaging to these young people which is being done now. The more interesting question and, intellectually, the more difficult question is: what is to be done to these young people who now go to penal custody? During my recent visit to the governor of Feltham, news came through that three boys of 15 had just been convicted of raping a girl of 13. I do not know whether they did or did not go to Feltham, but it seemed likely that they would. Under the policy which I and others are advocating, they would not go to penal custody. However, they would have to go somewhere. I do not think anyone is saying "Go, and sin no more". The question arises of what to do with people who commit very serious crimes but who do not go to penal custody.
I know that many extraordinary cases come up, but on 11th June I read about a young man of 26 who had just been given a life sentence for raping and strangling a young woman. When he was 15 he began his misbehaviour. He was put under supervision for a number of indecent assaults. Even with hindsight it is not easy to say what should have been done when he was 15. It is part of my thesis that he should not have been sent to any kind of prison. But what should have been done with him? As this is the first debate that we have ever had on this question I think one is entitled to raise such questions. At any rate we have to think hard about what to do with people who commit terrible crimes at that age.
I shall take a less extreme case because I accept the point that there may not be many cases like that. I was sitting in a magistrates' court hearing juvenile cases the other day. A humane atmosphere prevailed and the young offenders were called by their Christian names. There was a most enlightened atmosphere. A young man of 16—a boy of 16—had been convicted of stealing on this and a number of other occasions. The magistrates were anxious to do all they could in his best interests. They withdrew and were out of the court for a long time. I had plenty of time to talk to the social workers involved. They nodded their heads rather sadly and said, "It looks like custody this time". It was not custody, as a matter of fact. It turned out
508
that the magistrates decided to give him another chance and he was going to come back in a month's time.
Let us suppose that it had been custody. He was 16 and had committed a number of offences. What could be done? I may be told that there are local government secure units. I have visited several of those. Noble Lords may say that there are highly specialised youth treatment centres. There are only two of them, with about 30 young people in each. At any rate places exist where people can be sent. But let us not suppose that we are not talking about custody. When we talk of custody we use the word in a very ambiguous way. It is custody if one is put in a secure unit. One cannot go out and about. Whether it is run by local government or the Department of Health, it is still custody. Whatever word one uses, enlightened people—I am not authorised to speak on their behalf but I know quite a number of them—will be inclined to say that, as long as the young people concerned are cared for by qualified social workers, they will be better looked after than they would be in prison, if only because the qualified social worker, whether he is a probation officer or a local government social worker, has two years' training whereas the prison officer has only a few weeks' training. There is a presumption that fully qualified social workers will be better able to care for these people than prison officers. In some cases—certainly in the case of youth treatment centres—the ratio of staff is very much higher. So it may be the case that they will get much better treatment there.
I should like to make one point in passing. In the residential homes, which I was prevented from discussing when I was taken ill in February, the vast majority of staff are unqualified. We must be careful that wherever young people go they are looked after by qualified social workers.
That is one main issue that I want to raise. I am sorry to complicate the discussion but I have become attracted by the view that these alternative forms of custody, as I insist on calling them, can best be provided by the probation service. I leave that issue and the whole question of what they call intensive probation for the moment. I repeat that I believe that, for those who are too young to go to penal custody, the future should lie more with the probation service than with local government staff.
However, I have a second question for the Government of which, again, the noble Viscount has had notice. If we are talking about these enlightened institutions to which such young people who are spared penal custody should go—we are not talking about very large numbers—someone will have to build them and some resources will have to be devoted to them. Is the noble Viscount prepared for the Government to put up the resources to enable these more enlightened facilities to come into existence?
I shall return briefly to another topic. I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is taking part in tonight's debate. However, I must say a word about intermediate treatment. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us much more as he has played a very large part in the whole movement. I have visited a number of the centres. I think that the noble Lord will

509
agree that it is impossible to generalise about them. There is such an enormous variety of them. At any rate, in the ones that I have visited it would be wrong to think that they are primarily intended for people who have been found guilty of offences and who are sent there by the courts. I visited one which was devoted entirely to offenders. But others are also devoted to all sorts of different people. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will raise the question of the Government's attitude to the intermediate centres. So far as I can make out, the Government have cut off their supplies. Therefore, one would like to know something about that. However, I shall leave the topic of intermediate treatment to the noble Lord.
It may be said that we do not want people to go into any institutions at all. Certainly many progressively-minded individuals want to keep people out of all institutions, whether penal, local government or anything else. For example, the distinguished chairman of the Howard League, Mr. Andrew Rutherford, has set out to teach us that in the end most young people grow out of their offending, or their delinquency, and that we must do everything we can to look after them in the community. I entirely agree with that view in broad principle as an aspiration, but I must leave it to others to discuss the question of how far you can really avoid sending young offenders to institutions of any kind.
I see that I have now been speaking for a long time; indeed, it is a long time since I spoke for so long. My limit is usually about five minutes. However, before I close, I shall say a few words about young offender institutions. In 1989 there were still over 9,000 young people housed in them. The Chief Inspector of Prisons made fairly scathing remarks about the kind of regime which exists in such institutions. He recently published an interim report on one particular young offender institution —namely, Feltham—which, as I mentioned earlier, I recently visited more than once. He was pretty scathing about the situation there. In passing, I should like to point out that newspapers which try to present a horrific picture of places like Feltham may think that they are doing a good turn to someone. But they must realise that they can exaggerate—as, indeed, they do on occasions—the painfulness of the situation. They cause untold distress to the staff and the families involved.
However, be that as it may, let us take the example of Feltham, which is very much in the news with several suicides having taken place in the fairly recent past, three of them in the remand wing. Three-fifths of the prisoners are housed in that wing and there is no doubt that a very unpleasant life is led by most people who are sent there. One problem is bullying. It was only recently that it occurred to me—although it is a fairly obvious point if one thinks about it—that bullying is likely to be worse in young offender institutions than in adult prisons. Therefore, when we talk about trying to make life better in young offender institutions, we must realise that, in that respect, it is likely to be worse and more frightening to the timid and weak.
The governor at Feltham recently set up a special unit to deal with bullies. Of course, I do not know what happens to the bullies when they are closeted together; perhaps they bully each other or die of inanition. At any rate, the special unit has been set up and surveillance cameras have been installed, and so on. So the authorities are trying to cope with the situation. I should like to pay tribute to what the governor and his staff are trying to do throughout the prison. I have in mind one particular unit, the Nightingale Unit. I could dwell on that subject had I not already spoken for 24 minutes. I could of course speak for a further 24 minutes and other people may speak for 24 minutes on the Albatross Unit.
Great work is being done in those places but the governor of Feltham is no magician. He cannot do anything in a very big way to improve conditions unless he is given more resources. He has publicly, and more than once, called for another 40 staff. Are the Government prepared to make it possible to live up to their protestations—protestations that we have all made at one time or another—to the effect that young offenders ought to be treated better than adults?
Despite my lengthy disquisition, I have left out almost as many subjects as I have touched upon. One example is the whole question of women. There are also the issues that were discussed in the recent debate relating to the treatment of 16 and 17 year-olds and, in a general way, topics such as the restrictions on social security, lack of training and many others. However, I hope that I have said enough to launch this first debate. The central point to ask ourselves is whether we are prepared to let things go on now with conditions in some of the young offender institutions which are probably more unpleasant than in any adult prison. Are we prepared to do something really important about the situation?
7.27 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when I was catapulted by the invasion of the Falkland Islands into the Home Office, almost the first task I had to perform—and it appeared to be required of me within a matter of hours rather than days—was to reply to a Question tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on the entire condition and future of the prison service. It is a great pleasure to follow him many years later and to acknowledge the persistent and beneficial effect that his kindly inquiries have had on the custodial system in this country.
There is much to be done. The noble Earl draws our attention to a starkly worrying aspect. After all, it is many years since the death penalty was abolished for even the most serious crimes. Yet the suicide figures of which he has just reminded us mean that in some individual cases people are dying in custody as a result of committing much less serious crimes. That is the most stark way of emphasising my concern which flows from three years' responsibility in the prison service and which resulted in a determination to spend my spare time trying to keep people out of prison; hence my interest in this evening's debate.
Under those circumstances it seems to me that three things need to be done. The first is to reduce the use

511
of custodial sentences not only in young offender cases but in all cases. As regards young offenders, that was accomplished by legislation some 10 years ago. Consequently, there is now a statutory requirement on any court to consider every possible disposal for all age ranges before it gives a custodial sentence; indeed, the decision has to be recorded.
Next we need to intervene to prevent offending before it takes place. The noble Earl has referred to part of the spectrum of treatment that now comes under the not very descriptive name of intermediate treatment designed for that purpose. I think he spoke as if he was expecting to find only offenders. It is intended now for potential offenders, those at risk of offending as well. There was in fact the beginnings of reference to this in the debate which has just concluded. In that debate we were discussing parenthood, the necessity of good parenthood, the need to provide assistance through voluntary agencies for families under pressure where parenthood has broken down and that when the chain by which good moral, ethical and behavioural standards are passed down from one generation to another has been broken in one way or another it is then necessary to repair the chain.
Offending can be prevented by intervention at various stages in a person's life. In a recent inquiry into discipline in schools which I chaired in 1988 it became clear that behaviour of pupils in school had an affinity with their behaviour in society as a whole. There was an urgent necessity to establish good disciplinary systems in schools in order to obtain the good behaviour in social terms of the pupils attending the schools as well as to protect their academic achievements.
That is work for both the academic and the administrative staff of schools. There is work there for the dinner ladies and for the school caretakers as well as for the academic staff. There is also room for work by voluntary agencies. As that has been fully covered in the last debate, I would merely urge the noble Earl and the Government to read it.
I shall now pass on to what has to be done next, and that is to see that where there is an offence and where there is a sentence that the sentence is not purely retributive but that it is rehabilitative. Until lately we were allowed to talk about alternatives to custody because we saw ourselves being in the position of providing for the Bench or for the court a disposal which was not a custodial disposal but which had the intention of correcting the misconduct of the person concerned.
It began, I believe—and I shall listen with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a prime mover of this—as describing that which was intermediate between a fine and custody. It is now a variety of provisions designed to afford for people who have committed offences an experience which will make it less likely that they will offend again. This is very often achieved by introducing them to something which they have not actually experienced earlier in their lives, which is work for a defined purpose within an understood framework of discipline and under the personal supervision of a caring adult with very few
512
other offenders under his care. That is another way of saying that they are introduced for the first time to an ordered life in an atmosphere which in younger years one would have called loving and which in their years one would call affectionate but firm.
This is a method which can be found in many guises. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is quite right to say that there is no single word to embrace them, except that they are all designed to divert the individual either from offending or from re-offending. It is on the theme of diversion that the intermediate treatment movement focuses.
The noble Earl has suggested that he would like this effort to rest in the hands of the probation service. I give full credit to the excellence of that service, its dedication, its experience and its wide extent. But it has two disadvantages under which the voluntary sector does not labour. The first is that it has an inelastic number of people working for it constrained by finance. The people who do probation work are probation officers, full stop. The people who do voluntary work use varying amounts of their time and come with a myriad of different specialisms and experiences to bring to the myriad different cases with which they have to deal.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I certainly was not suggesting that all voluntary work—all youth work, for example, and everything that tries to help young people—should be taken over by the probation service. But I had better not say any more. I have talked enough this evening already.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Earl is one of the few Members of your Lordships' House of whom I can honestly say that I do not actually mind if he talks too long, but I exonerate him of any such charge. The advantage of the voluntary sector that I am seeking to stress is first of all that it has an enormous range of skills and a very large number of people who will work part time. Therefore the range of skills is extended. The other point is that it is not part of the system. If one is a probation officer, one is part of the system; if one is an educational social worker, one is part of the system; if one is a school attendance officer, one is part of the system. That applies also to a school teacher, a policeman or a magistrate. But a voluntary worker is not.
The people that we are talking about, the offenders we wish to divert from offending, have usually reached the condition where they regard the system as the enemy—something to be resisted, outwitted and not in any way to be co-operated with. So the voluntary worker has an enormous initial advantage in being able to come forward and say, "Look, I am here as your friend. I am not prejudiced and I am not committed against you. I am not paid by people who in another uniform would lock you up, keep you from home in detention or whatever". Those are two considerable advantages.
The difficulty that the charitable organisations are always under and always will be under is that of funding. If they are fully funded by government they will eventually be seen as an arm of government and

513
able to be discounted as an arm of government. Further, the skills that one wishes them to apply are not the skills of fund-raising. They are the skills of negotiation, supervision, control, sympathy etc. — whatever is needed in the case.
In the last debate—again I shall not repeat it because your Lordships can read it and I hope that you will—there were three interesting inventions, one of them by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who I see has the temerity to speak twice on one day, and another by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, who does not. Other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in particular, referred to the great difficulty that voluntary organisations have in acquiring funding for their own management. It is relatively—not very but relatively—easy to go to the great charitable trusts and foundations and say, "We are doing great work. We wish to pass on your money to this organisation or to that organisation", or a whole range of efforts, and to get that money. But if one asks for even a small proportion of it to be devoted to the central expense of that effort, then almost as one they draw back in horror and say "Not So".
I speak with a little experience of this subject as chairman of what is now called the Intermediate Treatment Fund of which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can speak with greater authority than I. It was set up in 1979 to act as a voluntary arm, but an arm of government in the sense that it was funded by government, to discover, assist, encourage and impart grant aid to a large number of small local voluntary organisations for the purpose of intermediate treatment which I have already described. It is operating still, but the Government have seen it as an arm of government. It was funded by the Department of Health, and the department regards it as no longer an area of priority. It is true that custodial sentences for juvenile offenders have diminished enormously over the past 10 years. That body also receives substantial funding from the Football Trust, which is one of the great charitable foundations of which I spoke and which is prepared to provide grant for distribution but not grant for central management.
The case I am making on behalf not just of the Intermediate Treatment Fund but of all voluntary bodies which are now available to the Home Office in its new revision of policy for the partnership in the treatment of offenders in the community is that the Government should be aware that the core funding of those bodies is a valuable investment for them. If it is not available, the cost of dealing with young offenders will be great. I believe that I am right when I say that the cost of keeping a non-violent young person in custody is in the order of £36,000 a year. Multiplying up figures of that order shows what an enormous cost to society the custodial treatment of offending is and what an enormous saving there is in prevention or finding an alternative to custodial treatment.
The body of which I have knowledge (the Intermediate Treatment Fund) recently carried out an exercise to see how effective had been the grant it had given to other bodies. It discovered, before it stopped
514
going through the figures, that the other bodies said that they had been able to raise a minimum of £5 for every £1 of government money which the fund had passed to them. That must be a good investment. If it is directed at keeping people out of prisons, it is not just a good investment for the Government in economic terms, it is a humane one.
I have spoken, as I said, relatively briefly and informally on a subject which is close to my heart. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will pass on to the Home Office the central message that I am anxious he should take to it, which is that there are considerable diverse resources available to it in the voluntary sector provided that they are prepared to tap into them. Those organisations are anxious to help provided that they can have the minimal support necessary to enable them to function as the aides and lieutenants of government in achieving their overall policy of the reduction of crime and custody. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, that must be a lasting aim of great priority.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for putting down a Question on this important subject. I wish that I could also feel grateful to him, which I am afraid I do not, for persuading me to speak. I nearly used the words "twisting my arm", but that would not look too good in Hansard. I thank him also for his generous remarks. I am conscious of being increasingly out of date. I am conscious too, looking at the list of speakers and after listening to the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that there is a wealth of knowledge and experience tonight which makes anything I have to say more or less superfluous. I speak because of my abiding respect and admiration for the noble Earl and his continuing interest in, and care for, young people in particular.
The noble Earl's Question is widely drawn. It can include all young offenders under the age of 21, as he pointed out. I propose to limit my remarks to the lower age bracket, partly because those of 17 and over are now catered for as regards the Government's intentions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which will become operative on 1st October. My main reason for speaking about young offenders is that they are giving rise to such anxiety. As all in the Chamber know, the age of criminal offending has now slipped down to 10 and even below. At that period in their lives most of them have not yet entered the criminal justice system. It is vitally important and highly desirable that they should not do so.
I shall speak about non-custodial measures. I shall follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and speak briefly about intermediate treatment as it exists in the community. I understood that the noble Earl intended to make some critical remarks about schemes that he had seen or heard about on his travels: he has not done so. It is true that around the country community-based schemes for young offenders and those at risk of offending vary in quality and content. I should like to give a reassuring report—a contrary impression—about intermediate treatment, as I found it, as president of the Rainer Foundation and

515
chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Fund between 1978, when the intermediate treatment scheme was first launched, and my departure in 1985.
I know from the reports of those two bodies that the facts, as I and my colleagues then found them, are still true today. The Intermediate Treatment Fund, of which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is now the distinguished chairman, made grants annually to more than 100 projects out of a much larger number of applications for support. I assure your Lordships that our criteria were strict and clear: the programme had to be relevant, realistic, constructive, and adequately supervised. Members of the staff monitored the schemes that we grant aided, and the staff, the chairman, and several members of the committee, travelled widely to see some of the schemes. That policy has been continuing.
I know that the Minister is considering the future of the Intermediate Treatment Fund. I can tell him that, unlike some who are critical, we found most schemes that we saw most impressive and the degree of local co-operation most heartening. Can the Minister confirm that the Intermediate Treatment Fund has set high standards, has improved inter-agency cooperation, and has drawn in a great deal of help from individual members of the public as volunteers and, because of that, has built good relationships between young offenders and those at risk and private citizens who have befriended and guided them? Those are the main attributes and values of intermediate treatment.
Particularly impressive in my time were some of the schemes set up after 1983 by the DHSS under Circular LAC 83/3 to deal with the more serious young offenders—intensive intermediate treatment, as it was called. It may be helpful to mention one such scheme in Basingstoke, pioneered by the Rainer Foundation which I visited several times. Its success was such that it was adopted by the probation service in Hampshire for wider application throughout the county. The county has now been characterised as a "custody-free zone" for 14 to 16 year-old offenders. In the criminal statistics for 1988 I noted that schemes in Surrey and Birmingham—two dissimilar areas—resulted in falls of between 35 per cent. and 45 per cent. in their crime rates of young offenders going through the intensive intermediate treatment.
A further question I wish to put is whether such intensive IT schemes which numbered over a 100 in 1983 and onwards are still widely available following the end in 1988 of the £15 million grant which set them up. Can the noble Viscount also confirm that the schemes have done much to increase the confidence of the courts in the probation and social services?
I wish to say a word about the content of the IT schemes. Home Office Circular 42/83 stipulated that supervised activities should provide,
"a wide variety of recreational, educational and socially valuable activities".
A notable feature of those now on offer is the great diversity of the interests for which they cater. Among them I select two which have proved particularly popular and have provided effective results. The first category consists of activities with an element of adventure which appeals to the spirit of daring among
516
many young people, particularly boys. That in turn accounts for much juvenile crime. Such is the importance that I attach to this element in human nature that I believe that opportunities should be created through our education and training programmes, as well as in leisure provision, for every young person in the United Kingdom to experience adventure in one form or another as part of outdoor education and training programmes.
Intermediate treatment also includes motor projects which are designed to deal with car-related crimes. As people probably know, car-related crime now accounts for nearly one-third of all reported crime. Such is the success of the schemes that there is now a National Association of Motor Projects, established by the police, to which a growing number of projects are linked. From my own observations, they capture the enthusiasm and imagination of young tearaways who have an absolute obsession with driving away cars.
A survey in 1988 by the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention showed that in that year, of 4,500 participants in motor schemes fewer than 100 committed offences during the period of training. The Home Office has designated 1992, I understand, as "Car Crime Prevention Year". Can the noble Viscount confirm that the schemes make a useful contribution to the drive against car crimes?
Prevention was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is an appropriate note on which to conclude my speech. It is obvious, but the point needs constant repetition, that there is a necessity to prevent young people offending in the first instance and entering the criminal justice system if they do offend. Police cautioning has long been normal practice for under 14 year-olds and has been used increasingly in recent years for the 14 to 16 year-old offenders with considerable success. Seventy per cent. of those cautioned do not re-offend.
However, there appears to be a good deal of disparity among local authority areas in the practice of cautioning. For example, figures for 1988 show that Staffordshire cautioned only 28 per cent. of 14 to 16 year-old young offenders whereas neighbouring Northamptonshire cautioned 82 per cent. Can the noble Viscount tell the House whether such disparities have since been reduced? It is obvious that they should be.
I have been impressed by the use of what is termed "cautioning-plus" or "extended cautioning". It means that the police officer giving a caution encourages the young offender to consider taking part in one or other of the wide range of activities which are provided in his or her neighbourhood. Volunteer agencies, working in collaboration with the police, follow this up by making contacts, if possible with the support of parents. Such agencies now exist in a number of places. I have personal contact with two in the North East. In the city of Sunderland, for example, there has been an encouraging drop in juvenile re-offending of 21 per cent. among those who took part in activities from 1985 to 1989. That is twice as big a reduction in juvenile crime as for the whole of Northumberland.

517
Home Office Circulars 14/85 and 50/90 encourage the extension of cautioning among the 17 to 20 year-old age group, hitherto used only sparingly by the police. Can the Minister say whether this is now on the increase?
My approach to crime among young people is correctional rather than punitive. It is all too easy to be swayed by emotion and put the emphasis on punishment. Of course there have to be exceptions for some serious young offenders of the kind mentioned by the noble Earl. I believe profoundly however that programmes of activities in which young people are encouraged or required to take pain under supervision —whether through IT or other community orders—should be introduced with the accent on their interest and usefulness rather than on punishment. Those activities can and should make demands on the participants. But the more that young offenders are enabled to take part, along with other non-offending groups, and can become integrated into the local community without being labelled offenders, the more likely they are to grow out of crime and change for the better.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Earl who made a distinguished speech and who has attracted two speakers from the previous debate, which was in many ways akin to this. It was gallant of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to speak in both debates: they add lustre to this one.
Two speeches on intermediate treatment from the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Hunt, complemented each other in such a way that I need do no more than congratulate both on their speeches. I have a close interest in IT and all measures to prevent young people going to prison or to divert them from coming before the courts. Those speakers have put the case for intermediate treatment in such powerful terms that I shall not comment further on it.
I wish to compliment the Government on the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Significant changes were made in that Act, equalled only by the changes made in the 1948 provision. That 1991 Act is not yet in force and it will come into force in October. I believe the new youth court will be one of the great engines for change. As has already been said, the court will, for the first time, deal with 17 year-olds, but it is the philosophy behind the court that is so important. There is to be a new emphasis on tougher community sentences and on rehabilitation in probation orders. It is explicitly designed and implicitly the intention of the Act that its provisions should result in a reduction of custody for the young. That is warmly to be welcomed and the Government are much to be congratulated on that.
The working of the youth court will need careful monitoring and evaluation and could well provide material for making further progress in non-custodial disposals by the courts. A further reduction in pressure on young offenders' institutions could be achieved, as the noble Earl has said, by ending the
518
sentencing of 15 year-olds to prison service custody. I strongly support that proposal and hope that the successful working of the 1991 Act will mean that custodial sentences will diminish in number and therefore that the pressures upon young offenders' institutions will be that much less. However, that cannot take place unless there is sufficient space in local authority secure units for the small hard core of 14 to 17 year-olds who cannot be released as they constitute a danger to the public. The noble Earl gave graphic examples of the kind of young person who clearly has to be held. I would hope that such a person would be held in secure units rather than in prison custody.
Will the Government consider the construction of far more local authority secure units for young people who can be much better treated by local authorities through the probation and social services than they can be in a young offenders' institution? My proposal would result in better treatment for young people and would relieve pressure on the young offenders' institutions so the latter could deploy a more constructive regime and, for instance, guard against the horrifying bullying and "taxing" that we hear about, and offer far more in the way of preparation for release. That relief, together with the extra staff asked for by Feltham and no doubt by other young offenders' institutions, would go a long way towards curing the ills which have been singled out in the commissioners' short report on Feltham.
Ideally and in the long run I believe that young offenders' institutions should themselves be phased out and ultimately closed. Even in the best of them young offenders have a 70 per cent. or higher rate of return to crime after two years from their date of release. Alas, that is a measure of their success. What is to be put in their place? I place my faith in the development of much of the philosophy behind the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the youth court. Treatment, and where necessary custody, should be above all local and preferably in the hands of the probation service and social services. I would add that intermediate treatment has a great part to play in treating those young people who can safely be given non-custodial sentences.
I do not believe the noble Lords, Lord Elton or Lord Hunt, mentioned my next point. Magistrates very much want an increase in the number of IT centres where young people can be sent for non-custodial, disciplined treatment.
I wish to say a few words now about persistent young offenders. I shall go right back to 1953, as this problem has been with us for a long time but little has been done about it. Many Home Office statistical bulletins have been mentioned. I wish to refer to Home Office Statistical Bulletin 35/85 entitled Criminal Careers of those born in 1953: Persistent Offenders and Desistence. That is the first time I have come across the word "desistence" but I believe its meaning is clear. The bulletin shows that a majority of the offences committed in 1953 were committed by a small number of young offenders. Those young offenders are clearly an important group who deserve study. Such research as has been carried out on that

519
group in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s has been done mostly in the United States. It suggests that such offenders should be treated in the community using community resources.
First, the treatment should specifically concern their offending behaviour and should help offenders to develop models of other ways of organising their lives and solving their problems. Secondly, the treatment should concentrate on developing good relationships, based on trust, between the offenders and those working with them. Thirdly, offenders should be taught personal and social skills. I do not think I need elaborate on those skills. Fourthly, there should be restitution and community service to help young people reintegrate into their communities. They need to recognise the wrongs they have done to individuals and to society.
Fifthly, there should be family intervention, where there is a family, and parents should be taught methods of dealing with their child's offending behaviour. Sixthly, there should be job training or studies leading to work.
I am sure that a whole range of responses is needed for these persistent young offenders. Different methods are effective with different offenders. However, I have given a range of methods that should be tried. I hope they would succeed. I hope those suggestions will be taken seriously by the Home Office. The paper of 1953 I have just referred to was taken seriously at the time and many years have passed since then. I believe strongly that that paper's contents should he reconsidered.
Those studies—mainly American—have indicated that approaches aimed primarily at deterrence appear to be relatively ineffective in reducing subsequent delinquent and criminal behaviour in young people. Of course, in dealing with persistent young offenders, as one would expect, the wider social environment is relevant. It is young people who live in the most deprived areas, with few facilities and little chance of employment, who are most likely to be at risk and become persistent offenders.
Noble Lords will recognise that many of those methods of treatment are just the ones which prison governors in young offender institutions want to carry out, and they are the ones which are being carried out at Feltham in the Nightingale Wing. However, the success of treatment far from home in a prison environment and frequently interrupted because ill-resourced is a wan hope. In another environment, in the community, such treatment might succeed. Let us try it, if only by means of an experiment in the first instance.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Earl for initiating the debate. I speak in the debate in order to seek information. The Unstarred Question asks whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans for improving the treatment of young offenders. I asked the noble Earl what he meant by young offenders and whether he meant young people up to the age of 18 or the age of 21. He told me that it was up to 21, and he mentioned
520
that in his speech. Therefore, I should like to work backwards and talk about the 17-to-2l age group, with particular reference to joyriders and football hooligans.
Research has been undertaken at Leicester University which shows, strangely, that joyriders and football hooligans do not come from a socially deprived background. They have money; they have jobs. Indeed, how could the football hooligans go to Sweden if they did not have money and jobs? If they do not have jobs, where do they get the money to go to Sweden?
We have to consider whether those offenders form a separate group or whether our earlier methods of treatment have failed. It is extraordinary and somewhat worrying, but I am told that there is a network; that the offences are not spontaneous but are well thought out. I was not in Liverpool when the joyriding broke out there but I am told that notices appeared on lampposts indicating that it was to take place that night. That means that a plan had been prepared by gangs or groups of young people. Equally, I am told, and I have not been able to prove it, that football hooliganism occurs on a network basis.
Who initiates the networks? Who is running the networks? In Oxford, where I come from, the main joyriding episodes did not occur in poor areas. They were carried out on the Blackbird Leys estate where there is only 5 per cent. unemployment. The estate has a swimming bath and two leisure centres, playing fields, a church and a health centre and the houses are very well built. One asks whether those are isolated phenomena in society or are linked to the fact that we still do not have the right treatment. I ask the noble Viscount whether research has been conducted on individual cases of joyriding and football hooliganism which are brought before the courts to show whether they are isolated incidents or are linked to the failure of our earlier systems.
Turning to the earlier systems, I fully support those noble Lords who have already spoken on the question of treatment in the community. Some people seem to think that treatment in the community is a soft option. Properly run, as it often is, it is not a soft option, as I believe the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Henderson, will agree. I have had some involvement with intermediate treatments run, for example, by Barnardos. They are not soft options. The young people live at home but they have to follow a strict programme in the evenings after work or after school. They also have counselling, which some of them have found difficult.
I heard a speech at a Howard League meeting in the House of Commons by the American author of a recently published book. In his area institutions have been closed and programmes in the community have been introduced for extremely difficult cases. However, perhaps in this country we have not reached that stage. I know that very good work is done at Glenthorne, St. Charles, Aycliffe and Feltham. I congratulate those four institutions on their work. However, I agree that we should work towards treatment in the community.

521
Looking back at one's own youth one remembers that on Saturday afternoons practically everyone played games and formed gangs to play football, cricket etc. In our schools and our education system are we helping young people to use their leisure time? A great deal is said about the curriculum, but what about leisure time? How much is that taught in schools? It is sad that so many of our schools have no playgrounds and have no games in the curriculum.
I make this very short speech to ask my noble friend the Minister what research has been done into joyriding and football hooliganism and into whether they reflect badly on our earlier form of treatment or are separate problems.
8.18 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for introducing this interesting debate. Other noble Lords have spoken with great authority on the subject and I shall therefore not take up much of your Lordships' time.
The previous debate has already been mentioned. It was very much to the point in bringing out the need for parental responsibility and family security and the mutual support to be gained from that. That is necessary to prevent young people from wrongdoing and to reduce the pressure on our penal system.
Perhaps I may digress for a moment to tell your Lordships that I was unable to listen to the whole of that debate because I was taking part in your Lordships' yacht club's race against the yacht club of the other place. It was not a great event; it was fairly short, but I am glad to say that I crewed for the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who was first over the line. It would be a very good thing if some form of sailing and boatwork could be introduced as a therapy for all young people. Being on the water induces a great sense of self-control and responsibility. It would be good if that could be introduced.
As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, it is wrong to put 15 year-olds in prison. They are subject to enough pressures at home already. It would also be both expensive and unconstructive. Moreover, they are subject to bullying and taxing, which is a new subject that I had not heard of before. I understand that it is the closest thing to fagging at Eton—something which I did not go through myself. Undoubtedly it is more vicious than that system, but much the same.
There is obviously an important need for segregation both by age and between new remands and "old lag" remands, let alone convicted prisoners. I recognise the valuable work that is being done at Feltham, although I do not think it is universally praised. I should be very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, how progress as a privatised prison is being made at Everthorpe, or the Wolds, as I believe it is called now.
The courses that are introduced need to be wide-ranging in skills and particularly the three Rs. There is not enough educational input into the courses that are run and perhaps much more emphasis should be put on that. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson,
522
mentioned the necessary requirements that should be put in place for training. However, he did not say where those training routines should be put in hand.
There is here the possibility for positive reform, which I have mentioned in this House on previous occasions, on much the same principle as the training programmes that exist at the moment. It can weed out those who are convicted and ready to reform themselves from that body of hardened criminals who expect to do time. There could be regular courses in all the fields already described and discussed.
The point is that the proposed sentence of the court could be reduced by half or even three-quarters, say from two years to six months, so long as the individual accepted the responsibility to take part in a remedial programme. It would be voluntary. The penalty for absconding would be that the original sentence would be reimposed. The threat of reimposing the original sentence would perhaps be salutary and to a large degree remove the necessary security, barbed wire and guarded gates. This point may be a little away from the point at issue for the remand prisoner, the short-term inmates; but it is an alternative for the 15 to 18 year-olds sentenced to prison for whatever reason.
Community work is the standard stand-by as an alternative. However, it is extremely difficult to monitor. I understand that 800 new probation officers are to be introduced following the implementation of the 1991 Act, but will that be enough? The work of probation officers is incredibly difficult. They work under very difficult circumstances and are dedicated and devoted people. But they find it extremely difficult to be effective. They certainly have their work cut out to make sure that their charges are gainfully employed or at school or whatever.
We have a great responsibility in respect of young citizens who come from damaged homes and live in various forms of insecurity, becoming involved in crime. Many of them may be hardened criminals but there are others to whom we owe a great duty—those who are young and first offenders who need our help. We have a duty to them to repair the damage of the broken home and other factors which have caused their offence. I urge the noble Viscount on the Front Bench to pursue these reform activities to the best of his ability.
8.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for tabling this Question and introducing the subject in such a clear and compassionate way. I, too, pay tribute to his long involvement in this field and all that he has achieved.
I believe that in recent years there have been some improvements in the treatment of young offenders. A non-custodial approach, particularly to juvenile offenders, has brought about a marked improvement, so that the number of receptions into prison service custody for sentenced juvenile offenders fell by 70 per cent. between 1981 and 1989; from over 7,500 to just over 2,000.

523
There are a number of reasons for that fall, but chief among them perhaps has been the recognition of the limitations and disadvantages of a custodial response in terms of reform or rehabilitation, particularly where the young are concerned. At the same time there has been a recognition of the advantages of dealing with offenders in the community wherever possible. Community methods have both reduced reoffending and offered adequate levels of public protection. By comparison, reoffending rates after prison custody have remained high and there has been steadily increasing concern about the conditions in which young people are held in custody.
Common sense would lead us to expect that. Common sense would lead us to think that if young people are held in custody with those who are rather older than themselves they might well be initiated into what one might term a criminal culture. By contrast, if they are treated within the community it is more likely that they will be encouraged to become responsible members of that community. That is consistent with the view expressed in the Government's Green Paper Punishment. Custody and The Community, published in 1988, which said:
"Most young offenders grow out of crime as they become more mature and responsible. They need encouragement and help to become law-abiding. Even a short period of custody is quite likely to confirm them as criminals".
Along with other noble Lords, I should like to ask whether that process of reducing custody for young offenders can be taken further. I welcome the forthcoming implementation of Section 63 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which abolishes the sentence of detention in a young offender institution for 14 year-olds. Nevertheless, 15 year-olds continue to be held in those institutions.
Fifteen year-olds are in many ways still children. They are open to being the objects of bullying and intimidation, without having the resources to respond or cope with such experience. I have visited young offender institutions in my diocese. I have seen the difficulties that the prison staff have in providing adequate oversight, particularly where the buildings are unsuitable. I have seen the great cross-section of youngsters that there are in those institutions. I find it not surprising that 15 year-olds find it difficult to cope; indeed, so difficult that some of them attempt and even succeed in committing suicide. Not only are those youngsters placed in situations of tremendous pressure but there is little or perhaps nothing to be gained by placing them there. They are not diverted from criminal activity. Indeed, they are more likely to be initiated further into such activity.
One may even ask: have their offences merited such a sentence? Of the 428 15 year-olds committed to custody in 1990, 81 per cent. had committed non-violent offences. It is true that 19 per cent. had committed what are termed violent or sexual offences, but none of them involved serious violence. Of those committed, 36 per cent. had committed burglary, but it seems to me that there is little point in giving those young people a sentence which is almost guaranteed to he followed by further offences. A range of non-custodial options is open for 15 year-olds. Some have already been referred to in the debate. They
524
include fines, compensation orders, attendance centre orders, suspension orders and the intermediate treatment which has received such good coverage today.
I refer to one other possibility. It is the use of reparation and mediation: that is, the bringing together of offenders and victims. That too involves voluntary help. It involves voluntary counsellors being trained to handle the meeting between offender and victim. I believe that such a method needs further exploration. It is to me particularly attractive because it has a profound Christian base. It brings together those who have offended and those who have been victims and restores the relationship, through the sense of hurt being expressed on one side and of oppression on the other, with the forgiveness that can follow when those sentiments have been openly acknowledged.
I give one example from the city of Leeds in my own diocese. It involves an adult rather than a juvenile. An adult who had burgled a house at night was eventually persuaded to meet the woman whose house he had burgled. She was eventually persuaded to meet him, as a result of the work of the counsellor involved. The woman lost her temper with the young man. She exploded at him and told him just what he had done by invading her house. She told him of her sense of outrage and invasion and the profound difficulty that she now experienced in sleeping at night. Faced with the tremendous outburst of temper, he realised that he had offended against a person and that what he had done was not an impersonal act but one that had profoundly disturbed and damaged someone else. Out of that exchange there was a coming together of the two persons. I hope that the aspect of reparation will not be forgotten when we consider how best to help young people.
Over the past five years courts have increasingly used such non-custodial options. Some courts never pass custodial sentences on 15 year-olds. Should that not now be the case for all courts? Is it not right that 15 year-olds should never be sent to young offender institutions? Furthermore, should we not also consider abolishing custody sentences for 16 and 17 year-olds? Many more young people continue their education at 15 and 16. There is less expectation that they will leave school and enter the workplace at that age. To draw the line between 17 and 18 years would be consistent with the age of majority being reached at 18.
However, the proposal to abolish custody sentences for 15, 16 and 17 year-olds would involve a form of custody, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said. That would presumably be in what are termed local authority secure accommodation units. I believe that there is a core of young people whom it would be necessary to place in such accommodation. Young offender institutions, in common with other prisons, are served by a prison chaplaincy staff. In my experience the work of prison chaplains is often highly regarded by other members of the prison staff and by the youngsters themselves in the young offender institutions. We might wish to express the contribution that chaplains make by referring to the spiritual

525
work that they undertake. But often those in the institutions speak of a humanising contribution that chaplains are able to make. They treat people as people. How is a chaplaincy service to be provided in local authority secure accommodation? If youngsters of 15 are to be sentenced to spend time in such places their need of a chaplaincy service will be as great as, if not greater than, the need of those already in young offender institutions. How will such a chaplaincy service be provided?
I make two further brief points. The first refers to the variation in sentencing which occurs in different parts of the country. I believe that on average 8 per cent. of those who are sentenced in juvenile courts are given custodial sentences. In some courts the proportion is nil. In one court the proportion is 15 per cent. Such a wide variation may be explained because of the type and content of youth crime in different areas. But in part it is surely attributable to different practices in different areas, and the way in which magistrates are encouraged to sentence. Would it not be possible to introduce some levelling of practice?
My second point has not been referred to today. It relates to the position of black offenders. I quote from the NACRO Young Offenders Committee policy paper which states,
"In 1986, over 10 per cent. of male prisoners and over 14 per cent. of female prisoners were drawn from ethnic minority communities. The statistics also showed a higher proportion of black prisoners serving longer sentences although they had substantially fewer convictions than white prisoners … The proportion of young offenders sentenced to terms in excess of 18 months who were from ethnic minorities was … 20 per cent. This over-representation cannot be explained in terms of more serious offences of offending histories … The 1991 Criminal Justice Act includes a provision whereby the Secretary of State will publish information each year to facilitate 'the performance by [persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice] of their duty to avoid discriminating against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground"'.
I believe that there is some evidence on the figures that such discrimination continues.
Much has been achieved. I join other noble Lords in encouraging the Government to press forward with further reforms so that young people can be steered away from, rather than into, criminal activity and can become useful and contributing members of the society to which they belong.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having introduced the debate. I touch upon a point made by the right reverend Prelate. I should like to deal with the issue of 16 and 17 year-olds which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I want to mention a case referred to by Judge Tumim, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, in the interim report on the young offender institution remand centre at Feltham. I propose to discuss the report in detail.
The preface records that Her Majesty's Coroner to Surrey had just written to the judge following the inquest he had held on a boy of 15 who hanged himself
526
recently at Feltham. Judge Tumim explained that the coroner made two points that he would report and endorse. First, the boy was sentenced to 188 days by magistrates in Norfolk. That is about 200 miles from Feltham, which was nevertheless the nearest available place for him. He received no family visits as a result. When a relative died he was too far away to attend the funeral. Then, at weekends, as a juvenile, he had only two periods of daily association, one hour in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. From 4.30 p.m. each day he was locked up and isolated for some 16 hours. That was the way we treated a child of 15 in Britain in 1991. In my view it represents a truly scandalous situation.
I ask the noble Viscount who will reply a specific question on that matter. It was dealt with by the right reverend Prelate. In the statement by the Home Secretary on the inspection report at Feltham—the point was raised directly in a number of speeches which have been made today —he repeated that the Government's aim as provided in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was that all under-17s remanded in custody by the courts should be held in local authority secure accommodation and not in the prison system.
We all agree with that. When, specifically, will that happen? Noble Lords raised that issue on a number of occasions during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 but secured no satisfactory answer. I should be grateful if we could be told when the local authority secure accommodation will become available.
I turn specifically to the report on Feltham compiled by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. The recent report is the result of a short inspection there. In my judgment the document was deeply disturbing. The background to that inspection can be stated briefly. A full inspection of Feltham took place in December 1988 and the report was published in June 1989. It was sharply critical. In March 1991 two inspectors paid an unannounced one-day visit to Feltham. Their main findings were that the regime had developed little since the earlier report and that there was over-reliance on the use of control and restraint techniques.
We are, therefore, in the position of discussing the third critical report on Feltham published within a period of three and a half years. I hope that on this occasion the noble Viscount will be able to reassure the House that steps have been or will be taken to deal with the various criticisms made in the reports. I further hope that we shall not have to wait for a fourth report on Feltham before those are addressed—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. Does the noble Lord realise that the inspectors' latest criticisms are based on anxieties expressed by the governor and the staff? They did not dig them out independently.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the noble Earl had contained himself he would have found that I was about to turn to that issue. It would be wrong to suggest that everything that happens at Feltham is a hideous mess—it is not. A great deal of admirable work has been done by the governor and the staff. I was about to make that point when the noble Earl

527
intervened. An example of the work that has proceeded satisfactorily is that which involves boys and their families in discussions about their future.
Judge Tumim's report has identified a number of serious shortcomings in the establishment and I now propose to deal with some of them. I have given the noble Viscount notice of those issues so that he is forewarned. I am aware that the establishment contains a considerable number of volatile and criminally-sophisticated young men. However, I find it surprising that almost 3,000 adjudications took place during the first 10 months of last year. That was when the roll on the day of the inspection was 764, which was below the CNA. The report stated that there was also an excessive use of unfurnished rooms and control and restraint techniques. Those were used in more than 200 cases in 1990 and in 196 before during the time when the inspection took place. In other words, there was a greater use of those techniques last year than in the previous year. The inspectors added these significant words:
"Violent and disruptive behaviour is often associated with boredom and frustration. There is little in the current regime at Feltham to engage the interest of young men, many of whom have a low boredom threshold".
I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would give a direct answer to what is a pretty harsh judgment. What precisely is to be done to deal with that situation which was analysed by the inspectorate?
I turn to the issue of escorts and the courts. An extraordinary situation exists and I have read nothing like it in any other report. That is not to say that a similar situation does not exist elsewhere; I merely admit that I am unaware of it. I find it odd that so many productions at court do not take place at all. During the first nine months of last year no fewer than 722 inmates failed to be produced in court. Feltham was unable to accede to production orders in 590 cases. In 132 other cases it was unable to deliver prisoners even in response to court warrants. Again, I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would tell the House what is to be done in order to deal with that situation. From time to time the phrase "value for money" trips off Ministers' lips. Can the noble Viscount explain how such a situation can arise? Apart from all other considerations it is costing immense sums of public money. Let us consider all the lawyers who turn up at court assuming that their clients will arrive from Feltham. In hundreds of cases their clients do not arrive. Let us consider the hours of police time that are wasted and the effect on court officials. Why has this situation been allowed to develop? Now that it has been described in such a way, how do the Government propose to deal with it?
Furthermore, we are told that the Citizen's Charter is to be extended to all courts. I welcome that; I am not a cynic on the issue and I believe that the Citizen's Charter is a good idea. Therefore, I welcome its development in the courts. If the object of the charter is to make the system as a whole more user-friendly and to improve its quality, no doubt the noble Viscount will explain to the House how those
528
admirable objectives can be related to the non-production of prisoners on such a scale. It causes great tension to many of those young men and a great deal of anxiety to their families—
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I must point out that the legal aid situation is also serious. Everyone is worrying about legal aid, but all those solicitors are being paid out of legal aid funds for doing nothing.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In view of press reports about the anxieties which are being expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I hope that his department will take an interest in what has been happening at Feltham. It is clearly a matter of considerable importance.
I turn to a different issue. It was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and is of considerable concern. It is the issue of bullying. I do not believe that in that regard Feltham is unique; the problem exists in many other similar institutions. The staff told Judge Tumim's colleagues that the issue was one of their principal areas of anxiety. We read in the report that as a result of the high level of bullying some of the more frightened inmates attempted to have the minimum level of contact possible with their colleagues. Some wanted no contact at all. It must be remembered that we are talking about young men in a custodial environment. It appears to me that the matter is of serious concern. We also read that some of the young men elected to remain locked up. Others committed disciplinary offences in the hope of being segregated. A smaller group resorted to self-injury in order to be admitted into the prison hospital. I am sure we all recognise that this is a difficult matter. There are no simple solutions; I accept that. However, I should be grateful if we could be told what is to happen.
I turn now to the physical features of Feltham. The inspectors said that the positive features of the wings such as the large communal areas available for leisure activities were under-used because the population was locked up for most of the day. There were indications of vandalism, graffiti, damage to equipment; some cells were without mattress covers and others were without pillows. Outside the window there were discarded items, cell equipment, blankets and articles of clothing. The main association and minor games area in the remand wing had, said the inspectors, an uncared for look despite the fact that it was only three years old.
I fear that one could continue with that depressing analysis. The morale of the catering officers was low. There were poor working conditions. Education classes—that is, education classes for children in many cases—were cancelled regularly on a Friday because discipline staff were not available.
I believe that I have said enough to demonstrate the gravity of the report. It is true that there is one matter that I have not mentioned; that is, the issue of staffing. The governor has said on a number of occasions that Feltham is significantly understaffed. The Home Secretary in his statement on the inspectorate's report

529
said that there is no immediate prospect of an increase in staff numbers. I do not believe that it is either sensible or responsible to join in that particular argument unless there is far more information available. Obviously, more staff would be welcome to the governor and could undoubtedly have an effect on the regime. But we must accept also that the number of prison officers has risen dramatically in the past 20 years. The ratio between staff and inmates has improved notably. I believe that it is for the judgment of Ministers and the Director General of the Prison Service as to how those staff should be allocated.
However, with or without those extra staff, urgent action is now needed to deal with the disturbing reports on three successive occasions by the prisons' inspectorate. We expect to hear from the noble Viscount what action the Government propose to take to deal with the problem.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by echoing the thanks which many noble Lords have expressed this evening to my noble friend Lord Longford for initiating this debate. It has been a useful airing of a very difficult and sensitive subject. The way in which intermediate treatment has figured largely in the debate has been extremely useful. When the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, made his contribution, initially I thought his combination of water treatment and quasi-fagging at Eton was a somewhat muscular approach, but as he went on I realised that he had positive matters in mind.
This is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue. It is difficult for the Government to know how to deal with the problem. It seems to me that the argument for removing 15 year-olds from the kind of custody to which they are now liable, if the court thinks it right, becomes almost unanswerable. I do not wish to delve into the Feltham argument on whether the governor needs more staff. But if 15 year-olds are taken out, the chances are that he will be able to manage better with the staff he has than if the 15 year-olds are left there.
I suppose that the arguments are both humanitarian and pragmatic. It is clear that many youngsters just cannot cope with the intimidation and other problems which they face in prison. Youngsters who do learn to cope with it receive an education in criminal life which stands some of them at least in all too good stead later on. The youngsters are often sent far away from their families, the very people with whom they either have to rebuild their lives or maintain a strong relationship if they are to stand any chance at all of becoming respectable, normal citizens when they come out. I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate from the Government's Green Paper. Most offenders grow out of crime as they become more mature and responsible, but even a short period in custody is quite likely to confirm them as criminals.
I wish to deal with the three specific instances of suicide, one of which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The first is the case of Jeffrey Horler. He was aged 15 when he was found hanging in Feltham. He came from Great Yarmouth and his
530
mother could not afford to visit him because of the cost of the 200-mile journey. Feltham was the only place to which he could be sent. He had just been refused permission to attend his grandmother's funeral by the social services. A prison officer told the inquest that he had found Jeffrey sobbing in his cell when he heard that his grandmother had died. He was only 15 years and four months old. What was he doing there? He was serving a four-month prison sentence for arson and car crimes. He died alone in his cell in September 1991.
Philip Knight hanged himself in Swansea prison. He had been charged with stealing a handbag. Why was he in Swansea prison? He was in Swansea prison because there was nowhere else to put him. No appropriate place could be found for him outside the prison system. Indeed, he was there for two weeks before sentencing. This is a terrible case. How old was the child? The child was 15 years old.
Craig Walsh hanged himself in Glen Parva. He was a disturbed youth. He had been placed at Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre for some 18 months. He absconded from the open unit at that centre and committed a robbery at knife-point against his aunt. He was arrested and spent approximately two and a half months on remand at Glen Parva. When he came to be sentenced, he was sentenced under Section 53 of the 1933 Act which, as noble Lords will know, gives the courts greater powers in relation to young offenders. There were no clear recommendations in the social inquiry report as to his disposal but it was indicated that a place at Glenthorne, which was the home at which he had been, would again become available to him. A sentence of 30 months' detention was imposed. Did he go to Glenthorne? No, my Lords. There was no room there and there was nowhere else to which he could be sent. Therefore, he went to Glen Parva, the Section 53 reception centre for the area, where at the age of 15 years he hanged himself.
I find it intolerable that children of that age should be placed in that position under that kind of pressure in this day and age. While I understand all the arguments about how difficult it is because there is no money and so on, I believe it is time that the Government accepted a definite commitment. We should be quite relaxed as regards the timetable and how long they take provided that they show a definite movement in the right direction that this House and the country can see.
I wish to make two other points. Most organisations involved with prison— and this is an interesting test—want to see an end to the practice of keeping 15 year-olds in custody. The list is a long one and it includes the Prison Officers' Association, the Association of Chief Probation Officers and the Prison Governors' Association. The Government are out of step with that consensus if they refuse to move on this point. I welcome the fact that they moved on the position of 14 year-olds, but why do they not accept that 15 year-olds should also be excluded? Fifteen year-olds cannot leave school and the minimum age for probation orders is 16. It is a strange anomaly that a 15 year-old should be considered too young to be

531
put on probation because 16 is the minimum age at which a probation order can be imposed but old enough to be locked up in a penal establishment containing older, tougher and more experienced offenders up to the age of 21. That makes no sense at all.
Those of us who have listened to the debate—and in particular my noble friend Lord Longford—want and urge upon the Government to give an outward and visible sign of movement in the direction in which they have nominally accepted that they wish to move. I am afraid that the present situation is not acceptable. In Europe, the United Kingdom, after Ireland, has the highest number of young offenders under the age of 21 in custody as a proportion of the prison population. That is an indictment of our penal system and society. We look to the Government to do something about it.
9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, like previous speakers I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. As he rightly said, it is an important issue. I say to him straightaway that I took the advice that he gave me in our last debate on a similar subject. I went to see my uncle: in fact, I had dinner with him last night.
It is a commonplace to say that young people are this country's future. But it is no less true for that. We owe it to ourselves as much as to the young people who sadly become involved in crime to find the best way of dealing with them. Clearly, the response must match the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the public. But consistent with that the objective must be to find ways of dealing with the young people which offer the greatest prospect of encouraging them to lead responsible, law-abiding lives in the future.
That has been, and continues to be, the thrust of the Government's policies towards young offenders. Before looking to the future and dealing with the noble Earl's questions, of which, with his customary courtesy, he gave me notice, I think it helpful to spend a moment summarising the very real achievements of the past decade.
Our approach has been that young offenders, and juveniles in particular, should be dealt with in the community wherever possible. To this end we have encouraged greater use of police cautioning. The proportion of juveniles and young adult offenders who are cautioned has increased substantially in recent years. There are some who say that cautioning is over done. But subsequent conviction rates—admittedly, a rather crude measure of effectiveness —are encouraging. Home Office figures show that 87 per cent. of people cautioned in 1985 were not subsequently convicted of a serious offence within two years.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the use of cautioning for young adults has been increasing over the past two or three years. That is very welcome. Although he is not here, I can confirm his comments about the contribution of major projects. As my noble friend Lord Elton reminded us, when young people come to court the emphasis has been on avoiding
532
custodial sentences wherever possible. The Government believe that custody should be used very much as a last resort. We recognise the effect custody can have on offenders. It can make them more rather than less likely to go on offending. Custody must remain available to deal with the most serious or dangerous offenders. But we believe that the great majority of young offenders can be dealt with properly in the community.
The success of these policies is clear. The number of juveniles under 17 years of age sentenced to custody fell from about 8,000 in 1981 to about 1,600 in 1990. For young adults aged 17 to 20 years the use of custodial sentences fell from about 21,500 to about 13,300 over the same period. There are a number of reasons for that drop. Not the least important is the provision, with financial help from central government, of constructive and demanding programmes for young offenders in the community. These are the intermediate treatment and intensive probation programmes to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred. He asked whether the Government will support such programmes. We have, and we shall continue to do so.
The Government fully endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Elton on the valuable contribution that the voluntary sector can make in work with young offenders in the community. In the 1980s the Government made £15 million available from the DHSS to the voluntary sector for work on intermediate treatment. The present supervision grant scheme, which is worth about £7 million in this financial year, is also channelled through the voluntary sector.
That brief historical survey sets the context for future developments, and in particular for the introduction on 1st October this year of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. That Act builds on the very real success of the 1980s. Previous criminal justice legislation introduced statutory restrictions on the use of custodial sentences for offenders under 21. That was another of the factors influencing the reduction in the use of custody for these young people. The Criminal Justice Act focuses those restrictions more closely and extends them to offenders of all ages. Under the Act, custodial sentences will be available only where they are justified by the seriousness of the offence or where they are necessary to protect the public from violent or sexual offenders. The Act enhances the role of community sentences so that they can be used to give a proportionate response to the offence without the need for courts to use custodial sentences where that is not justified by the seriousness of the offence. We expect courts to wish to make greater use of community sentences than they have in the past. The probation service has an important role to play in supervising the orders. That is one of the reasons why we are substantially increasing the number of probation officers.
The new sentencing framework applies to young people in the same way as it does to adults. But the Act gives special emphasis to dealing with young people in the community. It extends the jurisdiction of the youth court, as the juvenile court will be known in future, to

533
include 17 year-olds. They will thus be subject to the special sentencing arrangements and the welfare ethos which now apply in the juvenile court. That is a significant recognition by the criminal justice system that all those under 18 years of age (the formal age of majority) should be subject to similar sentencing arrangements. Under the Act 16 and 17 year-old offenders will be treated as a coherent group. Special sentencing arrangements will apply to them. Courts will be able to select from both the adult and juvenile range of community penalties according to the stage of development of the young people. That means that a wider range of community sentences will be available for 16 and 17 year-olds than for any other group. Courts will be able to select the most suitable community penalties and thus have the greater chance of sparing the risk of an unnecessary custodial sentence. That is a measure of the importance that we attach to the avoidance of custody wherever possible in dealing with young people.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon also mentioned NACRO's proposals for the abolition of custodial sentences for 15 year-olds, and for 16 and 17 year-olds in the longer term. We always listen carefully to what NACRO says—and, indeed, to what your Lordships say on this subject—not least because very often it is the Government who have provided NACRO with the statistics which of course it uses as a stick with which to beat us. We certainly share with NACRO the objective of keeping the use of custodial sentences for juveniles to the minimum. That is why the Criminal Justice Act 1991 abolishes the sentence of detention in a young offender institution for 14 year-old boys. However, the 1991 Act is not yet in force. We must make sure that it is implemented successfully and that it works as intended. As we monitor its effect we shall be able to form a clearer view of the need for further developments.
Let me say a word about the juvenile remand arrangements, which a number of your Lordships have mentioned, including the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Harris of Greenwich. The Government recognise the undesirability of prison remands for juveniles and are fully committed to their abolition. The 1991 Act makes the necessary provision. In future courts will be able to remand direct to local authority secure accommodation. However; this change will not take place immediately. More secure accommodation needs to be provided. We are anxious to end prison remands as soon as we possibly can. Secure accommodation is a specialised resource which takes a long time to plan and build. We are pressing on as quickly as we can but realistically we are unlikely to be in a position to end juvenile prison remands before 1995. In the interim the Act tightens the criteria for juvenile remands. Custody will be used only for those juveniles from whom the public need protection against serious harm.
Many juveniles who are convicted of the most serious offences are already held in local authority secure accommodation. The Government provide a
534
100 per cent. grant for the capital cost of providing secure accommodation. The Government also provide additional secure accommodation to meet our objective of ending prison remands for 15 and 16 year-old boys.
We are taking other steps to reduce the need for custodial remands. The Government believe that greater use can be made of conditional bail for juveniles instead of custody. That is why we are making available grants for the development of juvenile bail support schemes. These schemes support juveniles in the community and are aimed at keeping remanded juveniles out of custody.
Turning to the circumstances when young offenders unfortunately have to be given custodial sentences, the Government's policy is that the regime provided should be directed toward preparing them for resettlement in the community. This is to be achieved through activities designed to promote self-discipline and a sense of responsibility and through positive relationships with members of staff. These are high purposes, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for recognising that. They are not easy to achieve, but in many young offender institutions the staff are enthusiastically playing their part as personal officers, getting to know the young people, who look to them for advice and help.
The Government are not complacent. We know that there are difficulties in some young offender institutions, and in particular at Feltham, where the governor and staff are working together to find ways of improving the regime. They are also taking action to control the problem of bullying, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned this evening, by installing cameras in areas that are difficult to supervise, by taking robust action when bullying is detected and by segregating the worst bullies in a separate unit. A mixture of counselling, casework and firm control will be used in the unit. But the key to the problem is good staff-prisoner relations and of course close supervision.
I fully agree with noble Lords who have said that young offenders need an active regime, and this is central to the Government's policy. This means that effective use has to be made of prison staff, who are of course an expensive resource, so that they are available to supervise activities. Governors and their area managers have been analysing their staffing arrangements against the work that they need to do so as to ensure that their staff are used in the most effective way and that when bids are made for additional staff it is clear that they are really needed.
At Feltham this analysis has been carried out particularly carefully. More staff would obviously enable more to be done but that must await decisions to be made in the public expenditure round to see what can be afforded. It is important that I pay tribute to the imaginative way in which the governor has deployed his staff so as to ensure the best possible regime within the resources available. He has put strong emphasis on teamwork and is involving the new group of prison visitors and the friends and families of inmates so as to enrich the regime and strengthen the links with the community.

535
There is already an active suicide prevention management group at Feltham. In addition, the governor recognises the widespread concern about recent deaths at the establishment and has chaired a special group to identify what more can be done. The group is taking forward a range of initiatives, including a review of induction procedures and of measures to curb the incidence of bullying. Staff have been given refresher training in suicide prevention and a training pack has been produced for future use. Case conferences are held each week to manage prisoners identified as being at risk. A prison visitor scheme has been set up to support those who do not receive regular visits. Links have been made with the local branch of the Samaritans. The establishment is also continuing to develop its policy of encouraging regular contact between prisoners and their families, particularly where there is concern about the prisoner's welfare. A steering group at the prison service headquarters will review all the research on bullying. These lessons will be spread around the service.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me about control and restraint techniques. Staff have been made aware of the importance of ensuring that control and restraint techniques are used in accordance with the prison service instructions. The governor is examining the reports of each incident where control and restraint methods have been applied so that he can be satisfied that no unauthorised use is made of these techniques. The area manager will also investigate the use of unfurnished rooms and special cells and control and restraint techniques as part of the review of his contract with the governor and will report to the director of custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords mentioned intermediate treatment. The great majority of these schemes, set up under the intensive intermediate treatment initiative, continue, most with local authority support. The schemes have certainly made a contribution to the reduction in the use of custody for juveniles over the past decade. I must endorse noble Lords' comments about the Intermediate Treatment Fund.
My noble friend Lady Faithful] asked about research into football hooliganism and joy-riding. There is a widespread body of research on the nature of crime and its causes which includes both of these, but it is all part of our general ongoing research.
The right reverend Prelate asked me about spiritual welfare in secure accommodation. We recognise the importance of the role of the chaplaincy. If there was a move to secure accommodation in place of prison service custody for convicted offenders we would need to consider how best to preserve this contribution. The right reverend Prelate also asked about secure accommodation and children's homes. The children's homes regulations require that children should be enabled to follow their religion while they are in the home. But I do not know whether there are any chaplains to any of the secure accommodation units.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me about what is being done to reduce the number of adjudications. There has been a small reduction in the number of
536
adjudications this year compared with the period mentioned by the chief inspector in his report. A study of adjudications is being conducted by the psychology department. It is hoped that this can lead to identifying any training need and the best way of tackling the problem.
The right reverend Prelate also asked about the variation of sentences. Some courts use custody more than others. That is why there is a need for consistent national standards for community sentences to be used to reduce courts' reliance on custody. The Home Office has produced draft national standards for consultation.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam asked me about Wolds remand prison. This is the first purpose-built remand prison. It has about 320 places and takes adult male remand and convicted prisoners. It took its first prisoners on 6th April and is building up to full capacity in September. Its current population is 150. Wolds is the first prison to have its running contracted out to the private sector under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The prison is therefore run under prison rules. Instead of standing orders and circular instructions its running is governed by a contract between the Home Secretary and Group 4 Remand Services. Copies of the operational specifications which contractors are required to meet for Wolds were placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in order to avoid misunderstanding, Wolds is not concerned with young offenders.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam asked me about Wolds prison. I am attempting to answer as many questions as I am able to.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me about the court delivery of prisoners. Feltham, like many other local prisons and remand centres, cannot meet all the requests from courts and has to make decisions according to staff availability on the day. The governor arranges productions to courts in accordance with local priority guidelines which have been agreed with the area manager: those required for the Crown Courts, those where the warrant expires on the date of production, those required on lodge warrants and production orders.
The catchment area for the over 17 year-olds at Feltham will be reduced when Woodhill opens later this summer. Woodhill will take responsibility for the St. Albans catchment area. Plans are being developed to reduce Feltham's catchment for juveniles. We wish to transfer responsibility for Devon, Cornwall and East Anglia to other establishments. A cellular vehicle has been provided for Feltham. That should aid the production of prisoners in courts in the London area.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may return to that very point. Does the noble Viscount realise the full extent of what he has just said— namely, over 700 inmates not produced in court? As I pointed out, there are substantial public expenditure implications involved. Has any explanation been offered to the Lord Chancellor's Department, when

537
the noble and learned Lord constantly expresses concern about the costs of the legal aid bill? Surely there is a need to look again at the matter to see whether there can be dramatic reductions in this very disturbing incidence of non-production of inmates.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have said that we are doing something about the matter. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has pointed out, it is a serious problem and one which we take seriously. We shall indeed look at it. I do not know the answer to his question about the Lord Chancellor's Department.
538
But I must tell the noble Lord that it is something that we take very seriously and which we shall try to improve.
I hope that I have answered the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and those made by other speakers. It has been a most interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience on the subject in your Lordships' House. The Government are committed to effective and humane treatment for young offenders, aimed at preventing further offending so far as is possible and encouraging their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.